Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 19 May 21 >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gowd[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the work of Uanfala. Missvain (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though I couldn't find any specific guidelines or policies on deleting disambiguation pages, WP:DPAGE says that the purpose of disambiguation pages is to allow navigation. This page does that, with a reasonable amount of links that don't match anything in WP:DABNOT. HoneycrispApples (talk) 17:52, 26 May 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. Participants concluded that while the unconventional work week received coverage, this, coupled with the other references, did not provide significant independent coverage to establish notability. ✗plicit 03:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awin[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I looked them up repeatedly and found nothing other then their promotional page. 🐍 Helen 🐍 21:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, all sources linked on the Wikipedia page are independent news sources that are in no way affiliated with Awin, so they do qualify for notabiliy. Additonally, there has been an influx in news coverage on Awin's implementation of the 4-day work week in newspapers such as The Guardian [1], Forbes [2] and Bloomberg [3] which should also account for notability. Adding to that, the Awin wikipedia page is linked on multiple other Wikipedia pages such as "Axel Springer", "Affiliate Network" and "Click Identifier". If there are any issues with the tone of voice of the article, I am happy to adjust but in my opinion it already sounds fairly neutral. Sarahr23 (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Sarahr23[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/05/four-day-week-covid-crisis
  2. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rajeebdey/2020/12/22/all-we-want-for-christmas-is-a-four-day-work-week/
  3. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/four-day-work-week-gains-popularity-around-the-world
  • The entirety of coverage in the cited piece in The Guardian is:

A few weeks after the Unilever announcement Awin, an online marketing firm, said its 1,000 employees – including more than 300 based in the UK – would move to a four-day week after trialling several forms of flexible working. Like Awin, Unilever will trust staff to work more effectively during a 12-month pilot project.

This is too short to constitute coverage of the company. The Forbes and Bloomberg coverage is more extensive, several paragraphs on the same four-day work week topic. My concern would be that there is virtually no coverage of Awin as a business with achievements in its field. It's entirely about their decision to go to a four-day work week, which is shaky grounds for encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 20:47, 25 May 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. Missvain (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonfire Pipe to Pipe[edit]

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

Written promotionally, all the references are primary, a couple snowboarding magazines have mentioned this but what I found was also promotional coverage and not independent/secondary/reliable, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing about this looks notable and I didn’t turn up any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all others. Dr. Universe (talk) 16:15, 27 May 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. Missvain (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jander[edit]

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

I have been unable to find any in-depth source for this. It appears to me that Jander (or Jandar) is just the Pakistani name for a watermill (which we already have an article on). Rusf10 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can’t find any sources at all discussing janders as a particular style of water mill. It appears in a lot if place names but does just appear to mean generic “water mill”. Mccapra (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find evidence that it's a specific type of water mill. Suonii180 (talk) 13:59, 27 May 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 Hilary Wilson. procedural and non-controversial, per previous comment (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Hieroglyphs: A Complete Introductory Guide[edit]

Understanding Hieroglyphs: A Complete Introductory Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage per WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you seem to be right. I'm not finding anything sufficient either.
I do see this which shows that there're 18 citations for the book. Is that a lot and does that mean anything? I don't know. here is book called A History of Language (which sounds serious) with one of the cites, but just to ref a fact I guess. Ditto History of Writing. The Eye of Horus: The Connection Between Art, Medicine, and Mythology in Ancient Egypt. All simple cites. All this is not nothing, but it's not a whole lot either.
But, there's not really any real sources that I can find, no reviews at all in particular, and also nothing about the process of writing the book or whatever -- anything else except the bare content of the book. That's basically not enough for an article. So it doesn't meet the WP:GNG or any of the five criteria of WP:NBOOK.
But, NBOOK does say

The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria... Common sense should prevail... In such cases, how widely the book has been cited... [emphasis added]

Academic and technical books... are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice.

But I mean I'm cherry picking here. It also says other criteria are

published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions.

It's really any of these. It's not published by an academic press etc. It's published by Barnes & Noble which is major publisher, but so.
I'm just not seeing it. I'd have to go with Delete. YMMD. Too bad cos it's an OK article, but there's got to be a limit somewhere.
I would recommend creating an article for Hillary Wilson. The writer was a teacher (not professor I guess) for 30 years at the University of Southampton. That means nothing really, but she has written some books.
She wrote Egyptian Food and Drink[1] as well as this book, People of the Pharaohs and Egyptian Woman[2] plus articles for Ancient Egypt (magazine) which is "pitched somewhere between an academic journal and a travel magazine". She also wrote some novels, [3]. I can't keep up with all the rules, but that seems plenty for a nice (small) article -- couple paragraphs about her, then a list of her books with some material. I mean, this article (cut down a good bit) could go into it, and Goodreads has an entry for Egyptian Food and Drink. EDIT: I did this. 02:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
So possibly Userfy if the article writer wants to go that way down the road. Herostratus (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. found four translations, into French, German, Hungarian, and Chinese, which I added to the article. This is very big deal in my opinion and goes a long way to establishing real-world notability. As to Wikinotability, it would (IMO) mean it meets WP:TEXTBOOK if it was a textbook which it's not (as far as I know, not being part of curriculums), although it's kinda-sorta like a textbook. Kind of depends on how you want to squint. For my part, a serious book with translations into four other languages? That would lead me a good ways toward keep. Herostratus (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. This page "an advanced listening course (student's book)" could indicate that it might be used for a textbook in China, FWIW. Herostratus (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi me again. I merged everything into the Hilary Wilson article, except for the stuff about the tables which is too fine a detail IMO. So definitely a redirect is in order. Or delete if you like. But don't keep. Herostratus (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Herostratus as a procedural matter -- it's already merged. Vaticidalprophet 07:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per HerostratusDarktaste (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll note for the benefit of those involved that I couldn't find an academic review of this book via databases I have access to. The closest I could find is this, but, although it's "efficiently maintained" ([4]), it's still a discussion list. It does seem to suggest this is a useful book for those not familiar with the topic. I'm going to boldly close this as a non-controversial, procedural redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 25 May 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. Daniel (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reya Benitez[edit]

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

no basis for notability . The sources are mostly gossip pages, and the relevant policy is NOTTABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 14:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have seen no sourcing that convinces me she is eligible for a Wikipedia article at this time. The majority of coverage is just passing mentions. She also knows Tiffany Trump. Between GNG, INHERITED, and perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 23:05, 24 May 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. Daniel (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Cori Gibson[edit]

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

I do not see evidene for notabiity under GNG-- nor in NMUSIC, tho popular music isn't my field. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC, has released a lot of albums and singles in the last three decades[5] but I was not able to find a single reliably source for any of them.--Lirim | Talk 03:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I have failed to find any reliable secondary sourcing to support her inclusion in Wikipedia right now. Missvain (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Laddu Bhandar[edit]

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

Non-notable high street shop. Appears to just be a normal brick and mortar shop, can't find anything notable really. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 10:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I counted five different sources that appeared to be independent, though it would be good to hear from someone who can speak the local language as I'm relying on translation here. NemesisAT (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Apart from one source that's about samples being collected, there are no other in-depth sources as such. The news about sweets being couriered by Indian post is not specifically about their business. Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:44, 20 May 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. Poorly sourced BLP so no soft-delete. Daniel (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya O'Debra[edit]

Tanya O'Debra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stumbled onto this while trying to verify another article. Started by a 1 edit SPA, no inline citations, broken links, and I couldn't find enough information in an independent search to see how it passes WP:GNG. Yes, she's been in a three shorts, won the 2010 "Miss Fag Hag Pageant" Miss Bowery title (it was only held two years) and did some other minor things, but I just don't see anything significant in the coverage. It's been around 11 years like this, and if we can't verify the notability and the facts of a bio, it shouldn't be here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:22, 20 May 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. Missvain (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appius Claudius Pulcher (triumvir monetalis 8 BC)[edit]

Appius Claudius Pulcher (triumvir monetalis 8 BC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person didn't exist, and is apparently a combination of two distinct individuals. There's an 'Appius Claudius' (RE 15) who was exiled for adultery in 2 BC, and there's a 'Pulcher' (RE 291) who was triumvir of the mint c. 8 BC.

This article was created by a banned editor who was primarily concerned with genealogy, and his only source was a genealogical work of uncertain reliability (Settipani). Practically all the non-genealogical info was added by subsequent editors who weren't aware that the subject was in fact two different people. Aside from Settipani (I don't actually know what he says about this, the banned editor may well have misread him), none of the cited sources attribute all the information here to a single person; one of them, Wiseman, p. 213, explicitly distinguishes the exile and the moneyer, as does the REalencyclopädie (linked above).

The article's content is already covered in the articles of the two men's relatives and in the gens page, so there's no valuable information being lost here. Avilich (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Many have noted that they be the same, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. One course of action could be to just move the page to either "Appius Claudius" or "Claudius Pulcher" and focus on ONE aspect, but mention about the stuff that they may also have done/been involved in that historians have observed. We can include information about historians who reject the identification too 1, 2. Information scattered in other places is not helpful to a majority of readers.★Trekker (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, 1, 2, and 4 say nothing of the sort, and 5 says exactly the opposite and reinforces my point. This seems exactly the sort of thing that should be scattered around or in the gens page. Avilich (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do.★Trekker (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 1 and 4 simply cite no. 5 without any additional explanation, so those two support my side of the argument. No. 2 takes for granted that the exile Appius Claudius and a hitherto unmentioned consul are also different. Avilich (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, reviewing the 6 sources you provided (2 of the 7 links are the same source), 5 support the case for deletion and only 1 does not. Add it to the RE which I already cited, we have 6 references in my favor. Avilich (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They don't support deleton at all.★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can sum them up very quickly here. No. 5 is Wiseman's article, which you (very suspiciously) said identified the two individuals, but he says the exact opposite. No. 1 (p. 246) and no. 4 (p. 239) reference no. 5 without any additional comments of their own. I'll assume you're correct in saying no. 6 also regards the two individuals as separate. No. 2 (p. 241) takes for granted that the exiled Appius Claudius and the 'consul' (whom Wiseman, in p. 220, seems to identify with the moneyer) are distinct. This leaves no. 3, which apparently goes no further than lumping them together on the index in the end, and (to my knowledge) adds nothing to the discussion. So, again, 6 in my favor, 1(?) in yours. Avilich (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of the sources mention scholarly discussions on the topic, which should be covered indetail some place, not clogged as simple bulletpoint entires on a gens article.★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excepting Wiseman, they do not at all. And besides, Wikipedia isn't a dump for every single argument ever made in scholarship, it just takes the mainstream opinion and presents it as fact. Saying something like X may be identical to Y, but this is disputed also hardly takes up half a line – the exact thing that would belong in a bulleted entry. Avilich (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rest my case. The sources above and in the article make it clear that the banned creator was indeed in error when conceiving this article, and the (nonexistent) subject's notability has not been demonstrated. The keep voter has failed to make a case, and his own sources contradict his claims that this is all a single person and that there is significant scholarly discussion on the topic. This is not controversial and there's no reason for it to be relisted. Avilich (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no objection to making proper articles on the two individuals. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources do not show enough notability to warrant his own article. Suonii180 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 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 00:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lagol, California[edit]

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

Resuming our trip through Ventura County, we have yet another rail location. The topos show two different locations, suggesting that the next station/siding east was taken out and replaced with one a little to the east of the old Lagol. Searching, once you force Google to use the right spelling, is dominated by scanning errors (my favorite being the "lagol with cream cheese" which can be ordered with "Masonal fresk fruit") but I did find one reference in a photo caption identifying it as a rail location, and a few others having to do with soil series. Nothing suggests this was a real settlement, though, and considering the scanning issues, the number of GHits is small. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A postal directory hinted that this might be Fremontville, California (colloquially known as Fremont) but that was further to the east on Los Angeles Avenue, and the GNIS importers didn't know about it because it is part of the history of Moorpark, like Epworth, California is (Sheridan 1926, p. 457). Apart from the name "Lagol siding" I have been unable to find anything about Lagol at all. Ternez and Whistle, California, the next two things on the railway line before Moor Park (according to Results of Spirit-leveling) are equally mysterious, and saying that "the view from Lagol and Ternez is fine" (Diller 1915, p. 102) seems unencyclopaedic. Luckily, the GNIS importers didn't know about them, either. (Whistle is implied to be a farm crossing, because it had a cattle grid.) This is not notable. Uncle G (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gunter, Norma (1969). "Fremontville". The Moorpark Story. Moorpark Chamber of Commerce.
    • Winters, Michael (2016). "Epworth and Fremontville". Moorpark. Images of America. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9781439657355.
    • Sheridan, Solomon Neill (1926). History of Ventura County, California. Vol. 1. S.J. Clarke Publishing Company.
    • Diller, Joseph Silas (1915). Guidebook of the Western United States: Part D. The Shasta Route and Coast Line. Vol. 614. Washington: United States Geological Survey.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The location so nebulous, its non-notability goes without saying.TH1980 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesha Jayasingh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Essentially WP:1S Kolma8 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:17, 20 May 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. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iveyville, Iowa[edit]

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

While I did find one reference to some commercial activity here, and there are what seem to be the usual Iowan pigs and cattle raisers, evidence is that this was nothing more than a post office, not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polk's 1918 Iowa State Gazetteer confirms this as a post office in Jasper Township, Adams County, Iowa, which it does not mark as "discontinued" as it does others. Once again, it seems to be an almost completely undocumented post office, not an "unincorporated community". Uncle G (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Here is one instance of significant coverage. This (which appears to possible be associated with two adverts for stores in Iveyville on the same page) also discusses the community. This discusses the fate of Iveyville - people no longer went there for the P.O., so the stores didn't get as much business, and the last of the commercial buildings was gone by the 1920s. I can find a pretty good quantity of local news from Iveyville, but it's all trivial, such as reports on the weather, or illnesses, or the old town hall being sold in 1954. I couldn't find a whole lot, but there are multiple in-depth sources discussing this place, and it was more than just a P.O. Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:17, 21 May 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. Daniel (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Bourg[edit]

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

Found after closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Popular Economics; notability seems razor-thin. Geschichte (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As well as the couple of sources that I added to the article, there is this introduction to a personal narrative by the subject in "Women Pioneers of the Louisiana Environmental Movement". I'd prefer to find more, but without wanting to fall back on inherited notability, a MacArthur Fellowship (almost all of whom are blue-linked) could be regarded as indicative of meeting WP:ANYBIO criterion 1? AllyD (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my opinion, a MacArthur Fellowship is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO. pburka (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do think she does qualify under a mix of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Examples:
I'm convinced she merits inclusion. Missvain (talk) 00:23, 25 May 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 merge to Bill Whittington. Since the prior close by Missvain, which I believe accurately assessed consensus at the time, no consensus towards keeping has emerged and, if anything, the consensus towards merger has been redoubled. Much of the merger work appears already to have been done, but as before, incorporation of additional content is welcome. Go Phightins! 22:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Arizona Swearingen SA226-T(B) Merlin IIIB crash[edit]

2021 Arizona Swearingen SA226-T(B) Merlin IIIB crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This accident lacks of notability Wykx (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, because that aircraft not notable, but you can search "Bill Whittington" , and will have a lot of this accident news. Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found that if search "Winslow plane crash" , will have a lot of result,but "Arizona Plane crash" not have many result.I think might change the article title.

The notability may be about Bill Whittington but not about the crash itself. Wykx (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is adequate for the crash to be discussed in the articles about Bill Whittington and the Swearingen Merlin; there is no indication that this crash of a light aircraft in a remote unpopulated area would meet WP:GNG for any reason other than Whittington's death. Carguychris (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have just added a summary of the crash to the Swearingen Merlin page incorporating some text copied from this article. Carguychris (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bill Whittington per Carguychris. There's material here worthy of being on his article, but not worthy of its own distinct page. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Incident not independently notable. Should be merged into article about notable person. MB 23:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. The crash in and of itself doesn't meet standalone article notability. Merging into the article about Bill Whittington should be sufficient. —Itsfullofstars (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles about light aircraft crashes are not generally considered notable unless they involve the death of a person who is sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone biographical article about them. In this case, one of the two known fatalities in this crash is Bill Whittington, who has his own article on WP so it generally meets the community's customary standards for inclusion of light aircraft crashes. In light of the fact that the article was nominated for deletion about six hours after it was first created, I would also recommend that the nominator also take a quick peek at the suggestions listed under WP:RAPID. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You are correct that the crash may warrant its own article per community standards, but in practice, this often depends on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and whether enough germane information eventually emerges to fill an article. Many air crashes have simple explanations that can easily be covered in a notable person's biography page. I think it's too early to make the call here. Carguychris (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article also meets WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A quick search on Google news for "Winslow Plane Crash" turns up:
  • "NCSO: 2 People dead after a plane crash near Winslow" - ABC15 Arizona, 23 April 2021
  • "2 found dead in small plane crash near Winslow after officials put out fire in aircraft" Arizona Republic, 23 April 2021
  • "Plane crash near Winslow kills two" - White Mountain Independent, 30 April 2021
  • "Former sports car racer Bill Whittington died in a plane crash near Winslow" - ABC15 Arizona, 28 April 2021
  • "Former IndyCar, Sports Car Racer Bill Whittington Killed in Plane Crash", Autoweek, 25 April 2021
  • "Scottsdale man killed in plane crash", May 4, 2021
  • "Victims in Winslow plane crash identified", Yahoo News, 27 April 2021
  • "Sheriff's Office: Plane crash victims were Phoenix-area men", KGUN9 via Associated Press, 27 April 2021
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RecycledPixels is correct, established precedent is that where there is a GA accident that involves a wikinotable person, then that pushes the event above the threshold for sustaining an article - q.v. Graham Hill plane crash, The Day The Music Died etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RecycledPixels.

Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, as said in previous comments "not worthy of its own distinct page". It would be better to add a brief description in Bill's page.Paolo9999 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Then this article? 2021 Xumabee Game Ranch helicopter crash. Why this one nobody have questions?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk • contribs)
Please have a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know, just advise. Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And why is "not worthy", not just yourself think. Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one should be merged too if you asked my opinion. Others should too. But we are not talking about them here.Paolo9999 (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
okay l, I just wanna ask that, thanks for the reply.Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a Wikinotable person was killed in that crash, so the threshold of notability to sustain an article is passed. There is no "level of notability" threshold. Graham Hill, Kobe Bryant and Sasa Klaas are treated the same here, just like recent deaths at WP:ITN are. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: a full list a new crash articles has been added recently ( Xumabee Game Ranch helicopter crash, Touques Airbus AS350B helicopter crash, Alaska Airbus AS350 B3 helicopter crash). Those articles have only been added on the base that a wikinotable person has died in this crash. The notability applies to the person, not to the crash itself. We cannot create a wikipage on each event of the person's life without very specific reason. Wykx (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is arguing that we should have a wikipage on each event of a notable person's life. The argument is that in certain circumstances, a plane crash is a notable event independent of the people who were on that plane. This is one of those curcumstances. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this at the request of User:RecycledPixels who disagreed with my closure for merge and redirect (which I still support as closing admin) per User_talk:Missvain#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2021_Arizona_Swearingen_SA226-T(B)_Merlin_IIIB_crash. I am going to recuse myself from closing the next round of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, The story of crash itself is not notable, merge into Bill Whittington , Alex-h (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per I said before, Wikipedia not that serious limit crash page creat need very famous
only the people is notable.Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The accident has significant coverage from reliable, independent sources and resulted in the death of a notable person. While Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we already have a lot of articles about accidents that killed famous people, what makes this one different? - ZLEA T\C 22:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: have you considered WP:PAGEDECIDE? Which context is so important here that a dedicated page is created? I don't see some so that's why, despite the death coverage, the accident itself is not specific. Wykx (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bill Whittington as it's not notable enough. Suonii180 (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Per WP:CFORK. If the crash is believed to be important because a notable person died in it, then that is an argument for covering the crash as part of their biography. Sandstein 07:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bill Whittington per the above. Given that Whittington was both the owner of the craft and the pilot at the time of the accident, the crash is inseparable from his biography. BD2412 T 02:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per BD2412. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • help merge Then someone help merge bro? Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 20:13, 29 May 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 merge to The Collection (film)#Sequel. Missvain (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Collected (film)[edit]

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

Article about an unreleased film, not making or sourcing any strong claim to passing our notability criteria for films. The problem here isn't just that the film is still in the production pipeline -- it's that the production completely shut down within eight days and has never resumed since, such that "very little of the film was shot" (article's own words), and as of today there is no verifiable evidence that this film will ever be completed or released at all. But the notability test for films requires hard evidence that the film has been or will be released, and does not just indiscriminately keep an article about every single film that enters the production pipeline. Most of the sources here, further, are unreliable horror movie fan forums -- and while there are a few citations to more acceptable sources like Bloody Disgusting or Dread Central, there aren't enough of those to waive the "evidence that the film will actually be released" requirement.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if the film ever actually does resume production and get completed and released, but nothing here suggests a reason why this film would already be "inherently" notable enough to pass the ten year test for enduring significance even if it never restarts or gets released. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the sources on the article, they look like they should be generally usable - JoBlo.com is OK enough as a source for horror. ScreenGeek is probably OK but I'd need to look into it some more. SlashFilm is OK, as is Daily Dead. The main ones I'd question would be the Dark Universe Horror DB and Addicted to Horror Movies. The latter looks to be a nn blog and the former has an unclear advertising page and no info on the about page. The big issue is the ten year test and honestly, most films fail this. Even Superman Lives doesn't have its own article and that's one of the most famous unmade films I'm aware of. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The_Collection_(film)#Sequel, as per WP norms for unreleased films. Angryapathy (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. I can't really find anything else. I've merged/copied the production info into the second article and I think that this will do for now. We don't really have much at this point in time. The production could find a new wind and get completed in the next year or two, or it could be ten years. Or it could just not be made at all. If it does end up getting made we can always restore, but in the meantime we have what's important in The Collected's article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It can be recreated at a later time if production restarts but as of right now it's not notable enough for it's own article. Suonii180 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 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. Missvain (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Federal Republic[edit]

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

completely non-notable micronation YODADICAE👽 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not understand, this is a notable micronation and has diplomatic ties with many other well respected micronations. AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's notable, where are the independent reliable sources? YODADICAE👽 17:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. This is one of hundreds of micronation articles which has been previously deleted, and as this article contains no coverage from reliable, independent sources it thus fails to establish notability. The only listed sources are Twitter, MicroWiki (a wiki) and the PFR's official website, which are self-published sources, and as such do not establish notability. I recommend the editor read WP:GNG for Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is one source from one of the nations that has a mutual recognition treaty with the Penn Federal Republic https://micronations.wiki/wiki/Kingdom_of_Khazaria#List AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A self-published WWW page written by someone identified only as "Teryx I" and not even about this article subject is your idea of a reliable, in-depth, source written by an identifiable person, independent of the subject, with a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Please have some standards. Uncle G (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources shows this topic does not meet WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 20 May 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. Missvain (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart Matikainen[edit]

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

I've been watching this new page for a while, unsure as to whether to nominate it for AfD from the page patrol get-go. It's mostly the constantly tinkered product of a single editor, who has been reverting changes to the page. That notwithstanding, Lennart fails WP:GNG on multiple counts - as a politician WP:NPOL, author WP:AUTHOR or coach. The ISBNs of his books return 404 errors down the line and being a consultant to a reality show and shut down YouTube channel doesn't even get us beyond WP:BASIC - let alone being a right wing, shouty consultant. With a heavy heart, I'm invoking AfD... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I did some cleanup and then I looked for sources in major Swedish news media, finding very little. It is pretty much a case of BLP1E, where the only thing of note is the event in 2016 when he was going to appear in a brand-new reality TV show, and was exposed as having made some rather unpleasant racist and misogynist comments on Facebook (and made no attempt to deny or apologise for them, claiming that they were just jokes). As a result, he was not contracted for any future series, but as far as I can tell only five episodes were ever produced of that show. He does not meet WP:NPOL since he has never been elected to political office, and coverage of his alt-right activism does not rise to the level of WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 12:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 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. Only user supporting nom appears to have receded 7+ days ago. Nearly a dozen users advocating to keep, with convincing arguments. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Area Bus Service[edit]

Campus Area Bus Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 03:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 03:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unsure on the notability of this at the moment however the fleet list definitely needs to go. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, The article is discussing bus services, it's not about a company or an organisation really. And I think it already passes WP:GNG. I have further expanded the article since the nomination was made. Although the prose is adequately sourced, the only source for the tables apart from the hydrogen bus already mentioned in the prose is a wiki. If other sources can't be found for that list then I agree with Ajf773 that it should be removed. The article itself is a bit heavy on primary sources but there are also multiple others which establish notability so I vote for keep. NemesisAT (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to avoid the process of merge to Ohio State University, where it is appropriate for campus section so as not have to go thru process of Splitting later. Djflem (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes GNG. ɱ (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding: this is an institution that dates back to 1923, where bus service started even before it did for the public in Columbus. There are 15 Dispatch sources, innumerous Lantern sources, and many others to be found. I cleaned up the article already, and will proceed to add to it soon. ɱ (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - the article is probably useful, but the article name doesn't connect it to Ohio State. This should be corrected. Jax MN (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Assuming this discussion results in Keep, renaming it would only be necessary if there is another bus network named "Campus Area Bus Service". Caleb M1 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete or Redirect/Merge to Ohio State University. The sourcing in the article is just horrible. Likely there are a few good ones in there, but most of it is just local or primary cruft references full of trivial, run of the mill information. For instance, the whole bit about one of the buses getting in an accident is 100% trivia and a WP:NOTNEWS violation. There's zero worth keeping in the article once you get rid of that and the other trivia though. At least not that couldn't just be merged or redirected to the main article about the university. I'm sure there's plenty of colleges out there with transportation networks. 99% of them don't warrant a fork article with every little trivial detail that can be crammed into it. Nor does this one. Also, the article is written like an advertisement/blog post. No one reading Wikipedia cares about the operation times or specific stop locations of specific buses. It's purely add copy. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The incident resulted in additional services added and the university buying new buses. It's not trivia, it's directly relevant to the bus service and this article. NemesisAT (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notable accidents are relevant to transit services, airlines, and more. I moved it into the history section. I am going to add more valid content. The fact that the article is poor right now is not a valid criterion for deletion. Only notability is really relevant here, and I have proved that above. ɱ (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you if it was a regional transportation system. Like others have said, it's not even an official bus company though. So, this is akin to a hotel to airport shuttle service or those "buses" that transport older or disabled people who live in care homes. Given that, I don't an accident of this sort is notable. Especially considering no one died and all it says that there were "injuries." Which could mean literally anything. 17 people getting a few sprained ankles, bruised knees, or minor whiplash on a private shuttle is a non-story.
Re: "Only notability is really relevant here" Not really. All WP:AFDFORMAT says is that "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." Nowhere does it say the discussion is only confined to guidelines or policies about notability though. Articles are deleted for other reasons all the time. For instance, being blatant advertising and 100% a poor article matters when it's poor because of the sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're dead-wrong, from a lack of reading, it seems. The Wikipedia:Deletion policy covers why an article should be deleted, specifically at WP:DEL-REASON. So unless you think the article is spam, a copyvio, or other unlikely occurrence, your choices are to find something at WP:Notability or WP:Not. What can you cite there that this article specifically violates? ɱ (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: feel free to re-evaluate your vote. I did an extensive cleanup here, and added a solid amount of Columbus Dispatch references - it's the top regional newspaper for the Central Ohio metropolitan area. ɱ (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's always great when people accuse me of not reading the guidelines or sources when I directly cite them. Especially when the person procced to tell me what my options are like I don't already know what they are. Classic deflection. Anyway, I'm not re-evaluating my vote. Especially based on anything you have to say or have done to the article. Also, I'll remind you that WP:AGF is a thing and your showing a serious lack of it by questioning my reading ability and not accepting how I voted by bludgeoning it. Otherwise, feel free to provide a source that says the 17 people involved in the accident had serious, life threating injuries or a policy that says time tables for specific public transport routes are perfectly in scope and relevant for a broad audience. Does Bay Area Rapid Transit have time tables? What about CBUS or CMAX which are both in Ohio? The obvious answer is no. None of them mention minor accidents that their services have been in either. Despite your claim that they are oh so important. I wonder why that could be? Must just be my lack of reading and not because its trivia. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're here to discuss whether this article meets criteria for deletion. So far you haven't mentioned anything that meets those criteria. I am acting civilly, just pointing out that you missed the deletion policy, prominently linked from the page you linked me. I am not sure why you're bringing up the accident, as I haven't defended that. I am also not sure why you are bringing up timetables, this article doesn't have any. It does, however, mention service hours, something that is normal, and is present in Ohio transit and BART articles. ɱ (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And part of that discussion is if the sources (and therefore the article) only contain trivial information that is out of the scope of Wikipedia. 100% an article and sources that only contain trivial information doesn't meet the criteria of notability or inclusion in Wikipedia. Especially when there is a perfectly reasonable merge target that can be used instead of just deleting the information. All of which I'm sure you know already and are just ignoring, because you rather campaign for the article being kept whatever the facts on the ground are. Also, the article has a table of the running times of buses and where they start and stop. Last time I checked, a timetable is a schedule of transportation routes. Which is exactly what that is. I don't feel like arguing semantics though.
That said, the Ohio transit and BART articles don't (from what I can tell) say what times the services run from, to, Etc. Etc. Therefore, they don't contain timetables or schedules. Sure, the BART article says which stops don't run on weekends, but it's questionable that the information is needed and it's completely different then listing specific route times. That said, I think it's perfectly fine to list what BART routes don't run on weekends. As it's an article about a regional transportation system that covers multiple major cities, 120 miles, and has 50 stations. So it's completely different in scope then some random inter-campus 5 route system that's only meant to serve a specific, extremely small set of the larger Columbus, Ohio population. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An actual timetable
Lol, you're the one who brought up BART in the first place, and I assume you don't take public transit? Because a timetable looks like this on the right. This CABS article doesn't have anything remotely like this, sorry. ɱ (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because the articles don't timetables and this one does. Which was exactly my point. Your just proving it. Your side of this whole discussion seems to be either extremely circular reasoning or that I just don't know what I'm talking about. The last time I checked, "keep because people who are voting delete haven't read up on it and don't know anything" isn't a valid argument. Your not even arguing for or against anything. Do you have anything else that's actually meaningful to the discussion or is that it? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this article's timetable?!?!? Please screenshot for me anything remotely resembling the image I posted above. This is getting ridiculous. ɱ (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uuuhhh, the table in the routes section that has the start and stop times? A time table is just a schedule. It doesn't have to be a 1/1 exact replica of the photo you posted to be one either. Otherwise, your being way over obtuse about it. Really, you can call it whatever you want, but it doesn't negate the fact that having the times specific times and locations of stops is trivial information. Continuing arguing over the meaning of words instead of proving otherwise though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't argue with you if you think a list of services with service hours is a "timetable". You really don't take transit, do you? Look up definitions of timetables please. And this table present in the article is in nearly all transit agency articles, including BART and COTA. The fact that you're attacking a standard element of transit articles is ludicrous. ɱ (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally the circular, deflective, defensive response I expected. Your lack of corium or evidence in this discussion should be enough evidence to anyone reading this that the article isn't notable or worth keeping. Personally, I'm totally fine with it being merged. Apparently your not open to alternatives to deletion though. Which is fine, but I have better things to do then argue about the meaning of basic words that everyone knows the definition of or be told I shouldn't have an opinion because I don't ride public transit. "laughing emoji." --Adamant1 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Ah yes, because as someone who had barely touched the article before the AfD, my discussion tactics are deletion criteria. (What?) Also, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't take public transit to really understand timetables, as they probably have never used them. A leaflet that explains each departure and arrival time for a transit service is a timetable, something that is too trivial for Wikipedia. Service hours (a.k.a. hours of operation) are, on the other hand, allowed and encouraged in transit articles, and you'll find them for every transit service, unlike timetables. ɱ (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Your first comment said "No one reading Wikipedia cares about..." who are you to speak for what Wikipedians care about? Public transport is not trivial. This article does not contain only "trivial information". There are plenty of sources. NemesisAT (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I speak for what people reading Wikipedia care about when it comes to citing the guidelines about what's considered trivial and to local for the general audience of Wikipedia readers. Which is what I, and other people, do in AfDs all the time. I'm not what your issue is with that. People say the content in articles is trivial and not in the scope of a general audience all the time. Also, when did I say the article only contained trivial information? If that was what I thought I wouldn't have suggested a merge instead of just deleting the article outright. It's obvious some of the content is trivial and I don't think mischaracterizing my opinion (instead of just dealing with it) is really fair. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have misread your comment on the "only trivial information" part, but this line "So it's completely different in scope then some random inter-campus 5 route system that's only meant to serve a specific, extremely small set of the larger Columbus, Ohio population" does seem to suggest that the service is not significant enough to be included on Wikipedia. The size of a service is irrelevant, its whether adequate sourcing can be found that matters. There is adequate sourcing here. NemesisAT (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't really care if it's mentioned in the main university article. It's an interesting bit of trivia related to the university. Just not substantive enough to warrant an article IMO. Especially considering the poor sourcing. How is the size of the service irrelevant? From what I can tell there are no specific guidelines for public transportation. Which would mean we are forced to use either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Both require "Significant coverage" and your just not going to get that out of a small, local, inter-campus transportation service. You hardly do for regional ones in a lot of places.
There is already significant coverage from multiple newspapers, and at over 90,000 bytes the university article is already rather long so it makes sense to keep this article separate. NemesisAT (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking through the subject, it appears to be at least a marginally notable, minor bus operator. It may be the case that there's not too much to be said about the operator. I am unconvinced that the table of routes in the "Routes" section amounts to a timetable. However, I would suggest trimming the description of the service hours; for example it may suffice to say that the route runs during the daytime 7 days a week rather than 5am-midnight on weekdays, 8am-8pm on weekends. The fleet listing may not have been encyclopedic, but that has now been removed. On a cursory glance, I'm seeing enough news sources on newspapers.com and ProQuest (as well as sources on the article) to prove this isn't just a van operation someone decided to run one day. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the people voting keep that think the sourcing is adequate here's a small summary of what we have on hand. In the article and in concern to the sourcing. I'd love to see a meaningful response beyond "you shouldn't have an opinion because you don't ride public transport." I'll remind people that the guidelines are clear there has to be in-depth, direct coverage of the topic in the references and that they can't be primary sources.
In the article we have trivial, semi-advertish information like them having a pickup and dropoff service for disabled students (which is through a van company that's not connected to the campus BTW) and that routes can be planned through the Pivot app. I'm about 100% sure both qualify as WP:MILL, routine coverage. It's also like 4 extremely trivial sources right there. Especially if the metric is WP:NORG. There's also the part about the minor accident that no one got seriously injured in. That's another trivial source. When I asked our colleague Ɱ what in the article they thought wasn't along those WP:MILL routine lines the only response I got was that I don't ride public transport. So I shouldn't have an opinion about it.
Sourcing wise, there's the 5 references about WP:MILL content that I already mentioned. There's 7 references to The Lantern that aren't usable for this because they are primary. There's "Identifying Homogeneous Periods in Bus Route Origin-Destination Passenger Flow Patterns from Automatic Passenger Counter Data." Which doesn't discuss the bus system directly or in-depth. There's the Columbus Dispatch article about cleaner buses. According to the article their purchasing five all-electric buses. How is that not WP:MILL or routine? There's "New Ohio State University Diesel-electric Powered Hybrid Buses Delivered by GILLIG LLC Roll Out with Vanner Hybrid Beltless Alternators." Which is a company press release. How many sources is that out of the total? I think 14 out of probably like 17. Oh yeah, and three citations to a campus map. Which no one is going to argue is usable for notability. So seriously, what are we left with and what I am missing in that analysis? Right off the top 10 out of like 15 citations are primary and 3 or 4 only mention this in passing. How does that equate to a well sourced article that passes WP:GNG? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you do a row-by-row analysis of every source, I can't understand these generalizations and partial statements. Please do a proper source analysis or don't at all. ɱ (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good. My guess is that if I did you'd just come up with some other way to move the goal post and ignore counter evidence like you've already been doing to dismiss everything I've said. I doubt you'd be any less dismissive if I just change the formatting of my comment. Like putting 10 primary sources row-by-row is somehow magically more conviencing then just saying in a sentence that they are primary anyway. Anyone can easily verify that The Lantern is a primary source and count how many times its used in the article. I'm not doing a row-by-row listing of it just because you don't feel like putting in the extremely small amount of effort it would take you to do some pretty basic math while looking at the reference section of the article to disprove what I said if you think its wrong. Its on the people who think the article should be keep to provide solid evidence why anyway. Not the other way around. So I've already done way more then I'm obligated to. I'm erfectly fine with leaving the evidence ad it stands and giving other people the chance to weigh in Both of us have already made our opinions pretty clear. Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice defensive and circular reasoning. If you can't even be bothered to organize your thoughts in a critique, your argument is worthless. ɱ (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, The Lantern is an independent student-run organization with thorough sourcing and reporting, and an editorial board. It receives OSU funding only for its video/television programming. You are confusing wp:primary sources with wp:independent sources. The Lantern reports news, making it a secondary source, not primary. And it is independent to the university, making it an independent source when reporting on the university bus system. ɱ (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because it's defensive and circular to expect to people to read what I wrote and do their own research. Sure.
The Lantern is a "laboratory paper that is put together daily by students, most of whom contribute through the Lantern practicum class, and are not paid." One of the criteria WP:IDPRIMARY gives to identify if a source is primary is if it is self published or not. It should be pretty obvious that a news paper put out by students as part of a university course/class assignment is self published.
Also, WP:PRIMARY says "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Ask yourself, would students of a university be close to a bus system ran by that university? Realistically, what are the chances that they have direct experiences of the bus system? My guess is pretty good. It should go without saying that university students would have a vested interest in the existence of their universities bus system. Just as they would the university cafeteria, gym, or anything else provided by the university for the benefit of their students.
I'll also add that anything written by a student, for instance a master thesis, that hasn't been published in a third party journey that has no connection to the university is not usable for establishing notability. Even in cases where it has been reviewed by the universities academic board. A student paper is no different.
Would all that be clearer if I put it in a table? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the journalist who writes an article for a paper isn't the same person who prints the paper, manages the website, proofreads the article, etc, a student writing for the Lantern is not publishing it themselves. In response to the question asked at the top of WP:USESPS, the author and publisher are not the same person. I disagree that this source counts as "self-published". NemesisAT (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reviewers at the Associated Press reviewing an article written by an established journalist before they print it is in no way comparable to a random university professor looking looking at a students paper as part of a writing assignment. I could really care less who the admins for either of their websites are. That wasn't my point, and this has nothing to do with random website admins. Also, in this case the authors and the publishers are "students." So, yes they are the same thing. Unless you can clearly attribute every article by The Lantern to specific students and provide evidence none of them had anything to do with the printing of the newspaper. I highly doubt that's the case though since it's printed out of a class room as part of journalism assignments. Which means there aren't separate departments in different locations, or the organizational separation needed to say the writing printing have nothing to do with each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know whether the person who publishes the work is the same student as the one who wrote it. Just as we don't know if articles in newspapers are proofread or not. You're making assumptions. You're also assuming that journalists writing for non-student newspapers have their work proofread and checked which, at least for the newspapers in my area, seems unlikely given the factual errors and typos that sometimes get published. NemesisAT (talk) 22:18
Also, this article is about a bus service. Not a living person, or a controversial issue, it's a bus service so I don't see the need to be so strict on sourcing. There is plenty of it. NemesisAT (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We assume they are though. The same as we do with any other source that says it publishes it's own work as a group without evidence that they do otherwise. That's why blogs are not valid sources. It doesn't ultimate who pushes the "post" button. My personal blog isn't suddenly independent if I have my mom post the latest story I wrote one day instead of doing it myself. Same as my self published zine doesn't suddenly become independent if I have a random employee at my local Office Depot send it through the printer. Those aren't what makes something independent.
With news journalists though, there is an assumption of independence. Not just because of who they are writing for or who prints their work, but because there is an assumption of independence and safe guards in journalism world that doesn't exists for your average college newspaper. I'd agree that's not 100% solid though. Which is why Wikipedia generally stays away from being a news source, because breaking stories, intentional or not, tend to have a lot of errors. Especially when their local ones. So, obviously context and the subject of the particular Wikipedia article we are reviewing at the time matters.
RE "this article is not about a living person, or a controversial issue." Sure, but neither are 99% of the other AfDs or articles out there. It doesn't we should soften our standards for and make exceptions for any of them though. Otherwise, you could use the same logic to justify keeping an article on any local zoo or museum out there that a random 7th grader wrote a story about visit as part of a school assignment, because "hey it's not like we know 100% that the Associated Press fully vets everything they print right? And why be so hard about it anyway. My 7th grader just wants her paper cited on Wikipedia. Give her a break man! It's not like the zoo is Controversial." --Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, just so we are 100% clear, if the student newspaper was an independent, separate student organization within the university that allowed "students" to write articles for it then I'd probably be treating them differently. It's not though. It's a paper put out by a journalism class that is being worked on specifically by journalism majors as part of class assignments. My issue isn't with "student journalism", it's with student journalism that is dependent on and comes out of a specific class and assigned work. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, shifting goalpoasts. ɱ (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment shows such a lack of depth of understanding of journalism, universities, and public transportation. I'm gonna have to tear this apart line by line when I'm home. ɱ (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free. Your whole argument since the start of this has been that anyone who disagrees with you is just ignorant about the subject. Which so far has meant dismissing everything off hand without actually adding anything cogent to the discussion. If you think the point in this is just "tearing other people's points apart", which is an extremely bad faithed and WP:BATTLEGROUND way to engage people, then I'm not expecting any different. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Have you looked at the About Us and Contact Us pages? You made many false assumptions, (a) that only "random university professors" are reviewing the works, when there is actually a cohesive team of 23 editors, not to mention fact-checkers and copyeditors. Unlike many student newspapers, like the one I experienced working for, the advisor (officially the director of student media) is actually quite experienced - he had written for newspapers for over 20 years, and prominent ones - the Columbus Dispatch and Cincinnati Enquirer. And (b) that students somehow are publishing their own content when this is a printed newspaper, published by the School of Communication at The Ohio State University. You really are wrong about every point you make, just own up to it. ɱ (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources speaking about themselves isn't a determinant of their reliability. So, it doesn't really matter what they say about themselves on their website.
I will say though, that your supposedly cohesive team is still just journalism students that "change after completion of two academic semesters." So, clearly they are just involved in the paper because of their journalism related academic pursuits like I said. Again, 23 people in a class working together as part of an assignment does mean they are a usable source in an AfD discussion. You've provided zero evidence to show I am wrong about that either. If anything, your evidence that they are a revolving staff of journalism students just confirms that I'm right.
On the fact cheekers and copyeditors, do you have a third party references saying they have them and listing who exactly those people are? Because "fact checker" is not listed on either page. Or are we suppose to just take your word that they are reputable third parties and not just other journalism students? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're literally a wikilawyer and a troll; I'm stopping pandering to your ridiculous ideas. It's a fucking newspaper, with a highly-experienced director, countless reporters, and a huge editorial team. What more can you want? I'm not going down this rabbit hole any further. Submit a query at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you want to continue your doubts, over the voices of multiple seasoned Wikipedia editors. ɱ (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry your so triggered by being wrong. Feel free to take it up as more "trolling," but just looking at the editor-in-chief and managing editor from the contact page you provided a link to they are both journalism students. What I want is an editor-in-chief and managing editor that aren't students and won't just be new ones when the semester is over. I want people at the top that have prior experience in the field of journalism. I don't think that's a ridiculous standard to consider a source reliable by either. I mean, even the copy chief is a student for Christ sake. None of them have the career experience to be reputable, legitimate sources of news. Which is why they do special interest puff pieces like the thing about the bus system getting three new energy efficient vehicles. They aren't even at the point in their careers where a local outlet would let them report on something as minor as a car accident for them though.
Sure, the director of student media is a teacher, but ultimately, so what? We know it's a class project. Remember, your the one that brought up their supposed journalistic acumen. It's hilarious your calling me a troll just for pointing out they don't have any. Your taking this way to personal. It's perfectly OK to be wrong sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. You don't dictate reliable source standards. ɱ (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not my standard. Really, you should since your the saying the source should be used and is reputable. Like I said, it's on the keep voters to make a coherent keep argument, not the other way around. You think it's a reliable source, cool. Then prove it. You've done a horrible job at it so far though. I could really care less as long as you provide some actual evidence that it's reputable. Instead of just throwing a fit and insulting me. Which just looks bad on you and keeping this compared to making a coherent, evidence based argument.
Personally, I'm fine if The Lantern is used once or twice in an article to confirm basic information. That doesn't mean it's a valid source for notability though. Nothing says it is and the guidelines are pretty clear the standards are different for AfDs then they are for article content. It's not my problem that you disagree with that and can't muster up the proof that would back up your claims that it's an acceptable source. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. You alone don't dictate reliable source standards as you're trying to here. ɱ (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly am I dicting anything by giving my opinion? I've been more then clear that I want people to do their own research of the sources. While your the one accusing people of trolling and telling them what to do. So, if anything your the one trying to dictate things. Otherwise, you could have ended the discussion about 15 posts back after I brought up bludging. Anyway, I thought you were going to "tear up" what I said. Telling me it to take it the relaible sources noticeboard is a really weak way to do it. Is name calling, swearing, and telling people to take things to noticeboards really all you have? If so, that's pretty muh...For all the bluster I really expected more. BTW, I'm really looking forward to using my 7th graders essay about our local zoo in a Wikipedia article and then telling anyone who thinks its a crap source to take it up at the reliable noticeboard. Fun times...Fun times. I'm sure you'll totally have my back about it to. Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, everyone disagrees with you on The Lantern's reliability. If you disagree, fine. If you want to do anything about it, take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. ɱ (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, two people disagree with me and they aren't the only ones involved in the AfD. I've also had several people think me for my side the discussion. In no way is that everyone disagring with me. Not that I'd care if they did because AfDs are more about the strengh of the arguements being made. Not on who is better at calling people trolls or who tells the other side what to do more. Plus, I'm perfectly fine with being disagreed with. Anyway, I'm done with the discussion. Other people should have a chance to participate. I'd like to know what people who aren't going to just accuse me of trolling think of the sources. and my analysis of them. Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool dude. Four misspellings there. If you really thought the source was bad and actually wanted it removed as a reliable source, you'd do as I said four times and bring up a dispute, not just complain against your own incredible standards far beyond what's at WP:RS. ɱ (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phone editing while buying groceries tends to do that. Really based, reasonable criticism though. Seriously, lets give this a rest and let other people have a chance to participate in the AfD discussion. Adamant1 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After reviewing the article which has been reworked and some of the comments here, I am satisfied this meets the notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets NCORP by virtue of the sustained coverage it received in The Columbus Dispatch, a regional newspaper with high circulation. Mottezen (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sourced, informative article meets corporation topic requirements. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple citations to the Dispatch, the state's paper of record, along with being the subject of a study published in a respected peer reviewed journal is a slam dunk pass for NORG. 174.212.227.200 (talk) 07:51, 25 May 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 the article was expanded. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donkervoort D8[edit]

Donkervoort D8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Donkervoort D8: Was created in draft space, and then in article space, which prevents a move back to draft space. Author also created Donkervoort D7. Does not satisfy product notability or general notability. Created by a blocked sockpuppet, but there have been good-faith edits since then, so not an open-and-shut G5. See analysis of sources below.

Independent and reliable Significant
1 AutoExpress Information Sheet Probably not independent No
2 BBC.com Web page that cannot be loaded Appears not May be advertising
3 Car and Driver Product Review Yes Yes
4 Fastestlaps Product Information Seems not independent No
5 DesignBoom Product Information Seems not No
6 Donkervoort.com Own Web Site No Yes, but not independent
7 Donkervoort.com Own Web Site No Yes, but not independent

Only one independent significant source, does not satisfy notability, and the work of a sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Car & Driver and BBC articles seem to give the topic enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. But since the article is written by a sock, someone would need to validate what's written matches the sources (don't have a good understanding of cars to do this myself). Jumpytoo Talk 18:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively, while copying the better sources, ALL of these model articles into Donkervoort. We do not need ANY such stub article on models. If it's just a paragraph, it should not be spun off! gidonb (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while added by a sock, C&D and Auto Express are dependable enough sources. BBC page poses no problems for me. I will be happy to add more sources and verify any reliable ones already there.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources available. The BBC one loads fine (I think [23] is another version of it], and you can find more with a simple Google News search. Maybe it could be merged back into the Donkervoort article, but it seems fine as a stand-alone one. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after article was expanded. Notability was not my concern. Information governance considerations were and these have been dealt with by now. gidonb (talk) 01:23, 25 May 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 convinced this subject meets GNG. Missvain (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaishankar Chigurula (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NDIRECTOR and WP:GNG. All films are non-notable; sources are routine, unreliable, or database sites. Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FILMMAKER he is making India's First Ever Giant Movie Significant news covered in times of india and local news papers.

Andhra Jyothi and Sakshi (newspaper) daily news papers covered about his debut film 21 which was released in 2016 sources already used in articl. more than 5 sources shows it meets WP:GNG. one of his short film ROBO J3' was crossed 6.8 million views with 1,100+ Comments. my research which shows he was a notable filmmaker. the article must be improved.Krish jagarlamudi (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Screening times and film release ads in newspapers don't confer notability on any film, let alone its filmmaker. Making "India's First Ever Giant Movie" and number of views and comments do not mean anything without sources. I don't think even a single source cited in the article is worth discussing. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Fails GNG for BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Substantial references available and passes notability criteria. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How exactly does the person pass notability? Would be helpful if point you out which sources which meet GNG criteria. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is the source assessment of all the 16 references cited in the article
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Ab207
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
IMDb Yes No WP:IMDB is not considered reliable ~ List of credits ✘ No
TOI No Press release ~ WP:TOI Major newspaper No Passing mention ✘ No
Bookmyshow Yes No Online ticket booking site No Only name and image ✘ No
Celebrities of Tollywood ? No Self published website Yes Detailed coverage ✘ No
IMDb Yes No WP:IMDB No Passing mention ✘ No
123Telugu No Press release ? Entertainment website No Passing mention ✘ No
Youtube No Studio's youtube channel No Movie teaser No Movie teaser ✘ No
Youtube No Studio's youtube channel No Making video No Making video ✘ No
Bookmyshow Yes No Online ticket booking site No Movie title and credits ✘ No
Pinakini ? No Self published website No Passing mention ✘ No
Andhra Jyothy No Press release Yes Major newspaper No Passing mention ✘ No
Bookmyshow Yes No Online ticket booking site No Movie title and credits ✘ No
Filmihut ? No Self published website No Passing mention ✘ No
Moviemanthra ? Deadlink No Self published website ? Deadlink ✘ No
Andhra Jyothy No Press release Yes Major newspaper No Passing mention ✘ No
Youtube No Subject's youtube channel No Short film No Short film ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
None of them contribute towards the GNG of the subject -- Ab207 (talk) 18:14, 27 May 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam All[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG lacks sufficient coverage Articuno appears (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Articuno appears (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant coverage by sources already used in article, e.g. [24], [25] and [26]. 15 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now): Don't WP:BITE too quickly. See where it goes and if it remains untouched by the middle of May then I wouldn't be so averse to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plifal (talk • contribs)
  • Delete No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 22:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:55, 20 May 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 Draftify. Going with draftify as WP:Alternative to deletion. If it gets deleted in six months, c'est la vie. You can find this at Draft:Asian Journal of Distance Education. Missvain (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Journal of Distance Education[edit]

Asian Journal of Distance Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal, indexing nowhere selective, fails WP:NJOURNALS". DePRODed with reason "Removed PD/D tag so we can improve article to meet standards". However, WP:BEFORE suggests that neither NJournals nor WP:GNG are met. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the original PRODer Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I understand the notability situation, so I won't call for keeping it as it is. But AJDE is neither sub-par nor predatory, it serves the Open Educational Resources movement within low income Asian countries in a way other journals don't, and its principals have close connections with the Commonwealth of Learning. In fact, I can see that you all who are calling for deletion have expertise in this area, so if you can, I'd ask for advice on which indexes are sufficiently selective to reach out to, so that once that's in place we can move it back to the main namespace. --Steve Foerster (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"AJDE is neither sub-par nor predatory" that's not the point. The point is that it grossly fails WP:GNG. As for selective databases, that's typically Journal Citation Reports (i.e. has an impact factor) or Scopus (i.e. has a CiteScore). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I realise that's not the main point, but that was one of Randykitty's stated motivations for focusing on this sort of thing, so I thought there was no harm in making that clear, especially since I'm asking for the article to be draftified rather than deleted. And many thanks, btw, I'll relay your advice to the editors! :-) --Steve Foerster (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Drafitfy per SteveFoerster. Not a small number of papers published there (and reasonably well cited for a low-citation field in a low-citation part of the world geographically), see here. I'll not that I removed the external link to the website because it didn't work, but papers are still being published in that journal on Google Scholar in 2021, so it's not easy to say it's not notable. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even the lowest quality predatory journal will have papers "still being published in that journal on Google Scholar", so I find it difficult to see how this makes a journal notable (and I'm not claiming that this journal is a "lowest quality predatory journal"). Draftify would be fine if we could expect this journal to become notable in the next 6 months, but I don't see any indication that this might be the case. BTW, the journal moved to a different URL (.com instead of .org), I have corrected this in the article. Their "indexing page" proudly lists "Citefactor", a fake predatory "index", which does nothing to increase my confidence that this journal will become notable anytime soon. --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 27 May 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 merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois. OK - I have to put a "merge to" link when I closed AfDs, so I just chose COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois. BUT I encourage you to discuss it appropriate on talk pages, merge things to whatever articles you deem fit. Missvain (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame, I think this article is similarly unnecessary in the sense that it is way too specific of a topic to cover, given every institution out there is responding to and being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. If anything, select content should be merged to History of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and/or COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois. Love of Corey (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I Can't see anything in the article that didn't happen with the majority of educational institutions. Not notable for it's own article. Suonii180 (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perfect example of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. KidAd • SPEAK 20:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The University of Illinois pioneered the saliva-based test that helped make testing more accessible and contributed greatly to the research around COVID-19 testing.[27][28][29] This article is much more notable than the Notre Dame example. JustinMal1 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that it? The saliva test? If so, all of the content available on that subject thus far can easily be merged into either article that I mentioned in my rationale. Love of Corey (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the saliva test was notable then it should be mentioned at COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois or History of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign however as the majority of the university's response sounds similar to what other universities both in the United States and in many other countries have done, I don't think it warrants an entire article by itself. Suonii180 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thank those who have contributed thoughts to this "deletion discussion page." They have led me to realize that the Wikipedia article is weak in portraying what is unique about the UIUC's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The UIUC approach differs from almost every other university's response in three important ways. (1) A very efficient, fast and low-cost saliva test was developed at UIUC, and the university has used it to test students, faculty, staff and outside contractors, generally twice-weekly, resulting in over 1.9 million tests since the mid-August 2020 return of students for the fall semester. (2) Using this test in association with a UIUC-developed App the university has achieved fast feedback after testing, which allows the university to enforce rules designed to guarantee safe access to classrooms and other campus facilities. (3) Because of the strength of the UIUC approach, the University of Illinois T3 Shield program has been adopted by a large number of universities and other institutions within Illinois and around the country. Many of these three features are documented in the Wikipedia article through references. However, the above comments in this "Articles for deletion" page have made me realize that these three features are not sufficiently well described in the main body of the Wikipedia article. And, of equal or greater importance, these three ideas are currently barely touched upon in the lead section of the Wikipedia article. The article needs strengthening in order to emphasize these three points. (4) In addition, the article currently contains a lot of statements which are true for the responses of many other universities to the COVID-19 pandemic. These statements weaken the article, by making the main points of the article difficult to find. I plan to work on all four of these domains over the next couple of days, so that the deletion decision can be made with better knowledge of what is unique about the UIUC approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. CWBoast (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ADVERT. Love of Corey (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADVERT is the disamb. page for a bunch of policies and, frankly, a cop-out rebuttal. Please specify what specifically about Boast's comment meets the criteria for advertising — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinMal1 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep We recently were notified that a local school was adopting the Illinois Shield covid saliva test and found this article very helpful and timely in understanding what this is. Suggest keep this article while responses to Covid-19 are still playing out, then later after we've all hopefully moved on, do the merge and delete, but do save the info in the article, it's history. 2601:246:CD80:2DE0:5EB1:BC81:1E0C:17DF (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this article is about the university's broader response and other events that occurred there, not just the saliva test. If the saliva test alone is basis for notability, then much of the article needs to be removed, and the article afterwards will look too short. It's best if the relevant content is merged to the aforementioned articles. Love of Corey (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The saliva test is inseparable from the rest of the university's response, removing the rest of the article would of course remove its notability. Without the saliva test technology, none of the rest of the COVID-19 response would look the way it does. In fact, had the test not been invented, your claims would be accurate, that this page would be no different than the Notre Dame example that had been deleted. One cannot overstate the importance of the saliva test technology in what makes this article notable in the first place. JustinMal1 (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The smartphone app and the models don't sound particularly unique for this university, though. Remove all of that and the standard material of the 2020-2021 academic year section, and you have a much shorter article that can just be merged back to the aforementioned main articles. Love of Corey (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that making models is what universities do. That part shouldn't be surprising. Love of Corey (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was about to vote delete but then I read the article. It contains at least WP:THREE sources specific to UIUC's response to the COVID-19 pandemic (as opposed to sources that also cover other universities' responses), published over a WP:SUSTAINED period of six months: NY Times, C&EN, Chicago Tribune. feminist (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you just cited is an essay, though, not an official Wikipedia policy. Love of Corey (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's an essay, but my argument is basically that this topic meets WP:GNG, and the essay presents a broadly accepted interpretation of GNG. feminist (+) 15:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this Saliva test was extremely unique, it should be integrated into COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois or something similar. Or perhaps the person/team who actually did the work/development should have an article as a pioneer and scientist. But this article reads like an advertisement for the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Nweil (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RUBBISH is not an argument for deletion; it is only an argument for improvement. And this article is not exclusively about the saliva test. feminist (+) 17:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know whether a long comment like this is considered appropriate in this kind of discussion. I hope it is appropriate, and useful.
It seems that, for many of those arguing for deletion, the crux of their argument is a belief that the UIUC response to the COVID-19 pandemic is essentially the same response that many other universities took. If true, this argument would make a lot of sense: why would one want to see hundreds of Wikipedia articles which say essentially the same thing? I believe that some of the individual actions, and the combination of actions, in the UIUC response make its response very different than the responses of other universities.
As I see it, here are the most important individual features: (1) The UIUC developed a test which, arguably, has advantages over other available tests (as supported in the article being discussed). (2) The low cost and the scalability of the test makes it feasible for universities (and other entities) to administer this PCR test once, twice or more times per week to all students and employees, and to require a negative result for a person to gain access to university facilities. The number of tests administered at the UIUC since the August 15, 2020 return of students to campus is above 1.9 million, which, per se, means nothing -- but: (3) This allows the UIUC to continuously monitor the level of COVID-19 activity among students and employees and to tailor its testing, quarantine and isolation program accordingly.
None of these three features make the UIUC completely unique; other universities have adopted strategies similar to these. (1) Yale University's SalivaDirect test plays a role among non-traditional testing strategies (and, famously, was used by the NBA for restarting the professional basketball season). Rutgers also developed a saliva test and other universities have developed swab tests. However, (as is described in the Wikipedia article) none of these tests have the full set of advantages of the UIUC test. (2) A few other universities have tested on a regular basis. I have not found a source which documents how many universities test everyone at least once per week. (I have pieced together sources which suggest that maybe a half dozen test this frequently, and a couple of these may test students more frequently than once per week. If others would find it useful, I can describe how I came up with these rough estimates, but I'm probably already going into way more details than appropriate here.) (3) Many universities have tailored their strategies based on information gleaned during testing. However, in searches I have done, I have found no universities which have developed strategies comparable to those employed at the UIUC. In combination, these three (and other) features make the UIUC response unique, or one of a very small set of universities.
Some of the above comments raise questions about the UIUC modeling. While I have not found a source which documents the full role that modeling played in the overall UIUC strategy, modeling clearly did play a role in planning for summer-2020 student reentry preparations (as is described in the Wikipedia article) and modeling also played some role throughout the school year, in the university's ongoing management of COVID-19 on campus (also described in the Wikipedia article, but with less certainty). The idea that the university's modeling research should be dismissed because "making models is what universities do" is has no foundation; the modeling research was not included in the Wikipedia article to prove that the UIUC does research, but rather to explain the specific role that modeling played, real-time, in university decisions.
In summary, the invention of the saliva test does not, in and of itself, justify a Wikipedia article. But the saliva test enabled the UIUC to offer frequent and universal testing. It would be impossible to tell how the testing allowed for enforcement of the university's building use policy without describing the App. The App also provided ongoing information to the modeling effort. At multiple times the university quickly changed campus policy in response to information obtained from the testing itself, from the App and from modeling. The interplay between all the features of the UIUC strategy is what the Wikipedia article is about. To separate the features from each other would make it very difficult for a reader to see this interplay. CWBoast (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would love a few other thoughts from LESS INVOLVED parties.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge some of its content into COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois, I honestly don't see a need for its own page given the similiar circumstances across every other school in the country. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do folks think of merging (if there is anything to merge) and/or redirecting to COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois? This would be as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this discussion is about how the materials in this article could be merged into various existing articles. And this would work well for the material in the section titled "Extended usage of the saliva test": some into COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois and some into COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I plan to do that.
For the rest of the article the question is whether it should stand alone, or should be broken up and merged. In my May 7 comment (in particular, its final paragraph) I "argued that a key part of the article is its description of the interplay between the individual features of the UIUC strategy; to separate these features would obscure this part" (quoting the "Edit summary"). The first two sections of the article flesh out what is stated in that final May 7 paragraph; I believe that if one reads those two sections in the article, the interplay between the various components of the UIUC response is quite clear (although those two sections can probably be tightened and clarified).
Those who prefer to "Merge" these two key sections into various existing or future articles have put forward two arguments for this.
(1) Some take it as given that "every institution out there is responding to and being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic" or take as "given the similar circumstances across every other school in the country". These "givens" are obviously true. But I believe they are irrelevant to this discussion. If they were relevant then, by definition, no article should describe one university's approach. (That situation could have its advantages; no one would have to figure which articles on this topic should be included in Wikipedia and which shouldn't. But it is not a reasoned argument; it is simply stating something as "given".)
(2) Some don't "see anything in the article that didn't happen with the majority of educational institutions"; or they say that the UIUC "response sounds similar to what other universities both in the United States and in many other countries have done". This is a much more reasoned approach. But it needs support. What people "see" or what "sounds similar" does not further the effort to reach consensus. One way to support assertions about what one "sees" or about how something "sounds" would be to identify one or more universities which have done things similar to what has been done at the UIUC. In my May 7 comment, I attempted to explore this kind of thinking. (See the paragraph which starts "None of these three features make the UIUC completely unique....".) I find no attempt in any comment starting with the word "Delete", the word "Redirect" or the word "Merge" to identify a university whose approach is similar to that at the UIUC. This means (I believe) that there is no support anywhere in this discussion for the statements quoted at the beginning of this paragraph.
I think it is time to make a decision. With the removal of the "Extended use of the saliva test" section, I believe that it is appropriate to keep this as a Wikipedia article. CWBoast (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge: This might not be the case but the opening part appears as if this is a publicity message for parents to feel their students are safe because of what this article portrays to be a thorough-looking strategic plan to handle COVID properly. We can't have an article for every single institution (of this size)'s response to COVID. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:17, 27 May 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 NSL (company)#Passenger transport. I'm a big fan of WP:Alternatives to deletion whenever possible, so I'm doing just that. Missvain (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NSL Buses[edit]

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

See rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSL Buses which was closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be multiple sources cited including a new, independent, source added since the previous deletion nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: per NCORP, the sale of a business is trivial coverage and can’t establish notability. I have established why the other sources are also trivial and/or non-independent in the previous AfD. SK2242 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are 7 sources cited in the article. Of those 7, 3 are secondary. Of those 3, 2 are about the company. Of those 2, both are routine trivial coverage that NCORP explicitly says do not establish notability. SK2242 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its a lease holder and its a pretty small bus company. Fails WP:NCORP.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards redirect to NSL (company) as an WP:ATD. What do others think?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:50, 20 May 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. Delete and salt Missvain (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Shah[edit]

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

Would have CSD G4ed, but it appears this third time around secondary sources have been added as references. Nevertheless, seems to be a fail of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. nearlyevil665 14:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See WP:NOTINHERITED. nearlyevil665 14:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Creator has all signs of Undisclosed Paid editing. Check his contributions. Lock page for Admin only. 103.115.207.228 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
What do people think about delete and SALT? - Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Some sources in the article, like this one, seem to qualify for WP:GNG, but some other, like this article, don't qualify as significant coverage; news of a large share purchase like this is probably just WP:ROUTINE coverage. This one, I'm not sure if it's even news. The website looks like a blog, from what I can see, It even says "blog" under "Articles" in the header. Per WP:BLOG, this wouldn't qualify for WP:GNG. Some other coverage I'm seeing in this article: a Statista infographic (not significant coverage), a "Most Successful Indian Entrepeneurs" listicle (also not significant coverage), and some more routine coverage of a company ([30]). The only sources I think are reliable and which would qualify for WP:GNG are these two: [31][32]. Even then, I'm not too sure about the reliability of the first one, Kunal Shah: Scoring On Trust. The authors of it don't appear to have any past experience with articles like it, mostly Buzzfeed style posts. (For example, "Swipe right on these shows for more dating drama" doesn't strike me as a journalistic article.) Seeing as how the Kunal Shah article has been re-created 3 times, each time failing to cite any significant coverage or establish notability, I would support a SALT. HoneycrispApples (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a noteworthy person in the Indian startup scene, but there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to justify an article yet. Neutral on "salt". M4DU7 (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andbridge. I've also made some edits on the article which improve the look-and-feel / formatting (nothing major though, just removing some extra periods and such). Dr. Universe (talk) 17:24, 27 May 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 Polis Institute. The article history remains in tact if there is anything worth incorporating into the target article, but it appears a consensus has emerged that notability is not well established and that there is not a ton of promise that it will be. Still, if sources do come to light, there is no reason this cannot be re-created in the future. Go Phightins! 22:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Polis Method[edit]

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

I took a very deep breath before this nomination. This article is a magnificent feat of prestidigitation, but lacks any single source that refers to 'The Polis Method' outside of the school's own platforms, blogs or articles contributed by the designer of this method. Pretty much every citation doesn't refer to the method, but is used to stand up a concept referred to in the article, so cite 6 for instance talks about the 'full immersion approach' but not the Polis Method as it impacts or utilises that approach. And so on for pretty much every other citation in a very extensive list indeed. When you start to strip out the citations that just prove a mentioned concept exists but has no reference at all to the Polis Method, you are left with very thin beer indeed - and that almost all down to the designer and the Polis School. There is no independent, reliably sourced content here that actually tells us that the Polis Method is recognised as a concept, an academically valid approach or even, indeed, a thing. And so, with a heavy heart, I'm proposing it be deleted as a magnificent monument to Original Research that fails WP:GNG and breaches WP:OR; WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH. Oh, and I agree with the tags too - and think the problem is so deep rooted there that it would be impossible to weed out the promotion and POV without invoking, as I am effectively, WP:TNT. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Alexandermcnabb for your comments. Would it help delay blowing up this article if I provided you with a list of "(sources that refer) to 'The Polis Method' outside of the school's own platforms, blogs or articles contributed by the designer of this method"? I would continue editing that article now to still try and save it from obliteration but I need to address very important personal and professional matters within the next 2-3 days that I would have to delay the editing and incorporation of these sources until then? If you think this request is reasonable and would like to see the list of sources I'm referring to, then I can post that here in this conversation. I hope you would consider. Thank you very much. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find some time today to continue addressing the issue. Let me add that I will not contest the comment that I wrote this article more like a research paper than a Wikipedia article. I hope to correct this after the respite of I requested. But I will also add that what I wrote does not really reflect the fact that there are published articles written / made by parties not at all linked to the Polis Institute. For those articles written by the author himself, they're usually together with another, peer reviewed and published by reputable institutions (e.g. universities journals and publishing houses). A couple of these sources were in the References already. The reason I decided not to refer to the others is that most were not in English and may not be appreciated by English readers. But if it helps, I'd like to put them all in here already.
2015, Gala Lopez de Lerma, Análisis comparativo de metodologías para el aprendizaje de la lengua latina, Universitat de Barcelona, soutenue le 18-12-2015, cf https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/393957#page=1, p. 83
2015, Marco Riccuci, “Per una disamina del metodo Polis: un “nuovo” metodo glottodidattico per insegnare il greco antico come L2?” in lucida intervalla Časopis za klasične nauke A Journal of Classical Studies 44 , p. 155-179
2015, Michal Kabat, « Nauka jezyka starogreckiego w sposob czynny - metoda POLIS », pages 134-136, Nowy Filomata XIX 2015 (1)
2016, Marco Ricucci, « Questione di metodo ? Note storico-culturali sulla via carsica del metodo “naturale” (o diretto) per l’insegnamento del greco antico nell’occidente latino(fono), in Thamyris, n. s. 7 (2016), 47-74, https://dialnet.unirioja.es › descarga › articulo
2019, Francesca Dell’Oro, "Plongeon dans le grec ancien : compte-rendu des premiers ateliers de grec ancien oral de l’Université Grenoble Alpes", in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 132-145 (see especially pp. 134-135)
2020, Francesca Dell' Oro, « Le défi des langues anciennes à l’oral dans les écoles de Suisse Romande » in Méthodes et modèles de l'apprentissage des langues anciennes, vivantes et construites, hier et aujourd'hui , édité par Francesca DELL' ORO, Cahiers du CLSL, n° 62, p. 67-100 (cf. https://edipub-unil.ch/index.php/clsl/article/view/947) Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to add these:
2019, Christophe Rico, « La méthode Polis » in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 193-216
2021, Christophe Rico and Michael Kopf, “Teaching Ancient Greek by the Polis Method”, in Communicative Approaches for Ancient Languages, edited by Mair E. Lloyd and Steven Hunt,  Bloomsbury Academic, London / Oxford / New York/ New Delhi / Sydney, 141-149." Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The easier bit first: I think that at least some of the newly provided sources are effective in showing some baseline notability in the field. The Dell'Oro and Riccuci articles are good that way. The de Lerma ref is a thesis, which puts it at a slightly lower level. The Kabat ref I was unable to pull up, but at least the title looks promising. So I think for a concise and neutrally written article, notability could be signed off on.
The larger problem is that this is not concise or neutral. It's very much a promotional piece in the sense that many scientific journal articles are promotional - the writer showcases a product, argues how necessary the development was, how useful the outcome, and how it matches the requirements of whatever funding body provided the backing. An encyclopedia wants none of that. Along with that comes great over-indulgence in detail - again, fine for a journal article, not for an encyclopedia. And it would be a big job for any editor to cut this text down to suitable dimensions. So: not sure we are in TNT territory, but I think the author would be doing everyone and the topic a favour by moving this back to draft and turning it from an academic argument, into a concise article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this note and to @Elmidae for the constructive criticism. Let me edit this article now and perhaps you can then tell me if I should still move this to draft. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and eventually send through AfC. Sure, there's lots of references in the article. It seems like a miss mosh of random stuff though and therefore isn't very up to snuff as an article. I'm not saying it couldn't be with some work though, just that it's not good enough for main space right now. So, I think draftifying it is perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. I introduced some changes to the article. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However the AfD goes, you should declare your pretty obvious (to me at least) COI with the topic of article. I'll leave it up to you to figure out how to do that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to lack of participation I'll probably go with draftify, but, what do others think?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to check the first ref. but was in Spanish. It seems that at p83, there is a paragraph mentioning the Polis Institute. Very hard to interpret, as I can not copy-paste the text and use google translate. Since I want to make sure that there are not only brief mentions of The Polis Method at academic bibliography, could you (@Rzcortes:) be kind enough to point to two sources that discuss The Polis Method in depth? So I will have a look afterward? Gracias (not watching, please ping)Cinadon36 19:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Cinadon36 - thanks for your reply. I have found 5 articles which are whole articles on Polis - unfortunately, only one is in English. This one is published by Bloomsbury Academic, a London-based publishing house that included the Polis Method a very recent book entitled "Communicative Approaches for Ancient Languages." It is written by the author of the method and a collaborator of his. The abstract of the article may be found in this link: doi:10.5040/9781350157378.ch-014 The other 4 are in other European languages:
    2 in Spanish: (2012,  M. Carmen Encinas Reguero, « Un caso especial en la enseñanza de lenguas: las lenguas clásicas”  in El aula como ámbito de investigación sobre la enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua. V Seminario, Uri Ruiz Bikandi – Itziar Plazaola (eds./arg.), Universidad del Pais Vasco, p. 82-93 https://web-argitalpena.adm.ehu.es/pdf/UVWEB127079.pdf ; 2015, Gala Lopez de Lerma, Análisis comparativo de metodologías para el aprendizaje de la lengua latina, Universitat de Barcelona, Ph.D. Dissertation. http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/handle/2445/102093 )
    1 in Italian (2015, Marco Riccuci, “Per una disamina del metodo Polis: un “nuovo” metodo glottodidattico per insegnare il freco antico come L2?” in lucida intervalla Časopis za klasične nauke A Journal of Classical Studies 44 , p. 155-179 https://www.academia.edu/23719638/Per_una_disamina_del_metodo_Polis_un_nuovo_metodo_glottodidattico_per_insegnare_il_greco_antico_come_L2?auto=download
    1 in Polish (2015, Michal Kabat, «Nauka jezyka starogreckiego w sposob czynny - metoda POLIS», pages 134-136, Nowy Filomata XIX 2015 (1) (Whole article on the Polis method) http://pau.krakow.pl/index.php/pl/wydawnictwo/strony-czasopism/nowy-filomata/archiwum/xix-2015-nr-1)
    Except for the Polish article, I have read extensively - not the dissertation, I admit, since it's a comparative study and I simply focused on Polis - the ones is Spanish and Italian in their original languages. They are, in fact whole articles on Polis and not just brief mentions. If you wish, the links to the works of Encinas Reguero and Riccuci could be copy-pasted.
    I read all those articles in a rather academic context. I am an assistant professor of communication ethics in the Philippines with a passion for ancient languages and already finished several classes in Latin, Hebrew and Greek in the Polis Institute. I was impressed with the method, thoroughly enjoyed the experience, and am writing this to share what I know. While writing this Wikipedia article, I am also in the process of writing a journal article on this method which I intend to submit it to The Journal of Classics Teaching (UK-based). This is the reason that in the previous versions of this article, there were several references which have been referred to as "trivial" in Wikipedia. What is concerned standard fare in journal articles of citing sources of concepts you mention that need clarification elsewhere (e.g. terms lie "language-based," "whole language approach," etc. is apparently frowned upon in Wikipedia. I stand corrected there since I am new to this platform and still finding my way around in terms of writing style.
    As to institutions in Europe and the US that have shown interest in the Polis Method and are using it, there are several cited in the article. Thanks. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • the ones IN Spanish and Italian Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I failed to mention that since the author is French, he has another work on this method published by what I judge to be a rather respectable French academic source. The method is also mentioned as an alternative method for learning ancient languages in another article in French. This latter article is not wholly on the Polis method but its mention is certainly not merely in passing. If you are interested in these, here are the bibliographic details.
    2019, Christophe Rico, « La méthode Polis » in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 193-216 (Whole article on the Polis method) . https://books.openedition.org/ugaeditions/10289
    2019, Francesca Dell’Oro, "Plongeon dans le grec ancien : compte-rendu des premiers ateliers de grec ancien oral de l’Université Grenoble Alpes", in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 132-145 (see pp. 134-135). https://books.openedition.org/ugaeditions/10289  
    Thanks! Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've seen this before with an academic topic article, where a bunch of refs are included that discuss topics tangential to the article's subject to give it an air of sophistication. At best, it could be a section of the Polis Institute, but the lack of specific coverage does not constitute enough for its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Polis Institute article is a good example of exactly what your talking about. Six trivial references just for the first sentence, yikes. Not surprising though since like this article it's mostly been edited by Rzcortes. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am not impressed, but it seems there is enough foreign coverage of Polis method. This has been the most convincing publishing [33]. I am a little uneased, since I am unfamiliar with french lang and I do not know the editors. But UGA Editions is the publisher of Université Grenoble Alpes. Cinadon36 06:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article needs some clean-up but it passes notability criteria. Poorly written article is not a reason to delete if it can be salvaged and improved. If not going to keep, I recommend Redirect or Merge with The Polis Institute main page which already exists. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable given the number of independent citations on the polis method; they may not be Anglo-Saxon, but they are scholarly. Article should echo more these independent citations than the writings of the original creator and institution. Remove all marketing-sounding catch phrases in the lede. Jesuitsj (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify at best. Clearly not ready for mainspace. Onel5969 TT me 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or redirect to Polis Institute. I am looking at the version that includes the changes "edited for encyclopedic tone" and "more encyclopedic tone editing" (by the likely COI author) and it still reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, possibly selective merge to The Polis Institute. The title already implies that this is a method specific to this institution. The article is full of promotional buzzwords and jargon, making me believe that we won't lose much if we omit this content. Sandstein 08:33, 29 May 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 merge to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Netherlands). Feel free to redirect faster if not much to merge. I prefer WP:Alternatives to deletion when possible, Missvain (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Institute for Communication and Development[edit]

International Institute for Communication and Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are quite a few google hits (even on Scholar/Books) but I am struggling to find anything that is not a catalogue-entry or a WP:SIGCOV-failing repeat of their mission ("IICD aims to assist local stakeholders in the formulation of national policy recommendations..." and like). The current catalogue-like entry is also unreferenced. Also, there is a possible COPYVIO here from [34] (I don't have access to the full view here, but the first sentence is copied verbatim from there). No Dutch Wikipedia entry. The NGO seems to be gone (closed in 2015), so it is not likely to achieve feats granting it notaiblity in the future. Given lack of reception for its past activities it fails WP:NORG and I can't find sources to improve it - but maybe someone else here can? Just please, avoid pure googlehits or quoting sources that do not meet SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any suggestions on merge/redirect as an alternative to deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No further arguments by nom in the last 3 weeks, nor by the only nom supporter. NYT article pointed out later, and was only met with recommendation to keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Isler[edit]

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

Non-notable pianist. Only source of notability I can find online is critics' reviews. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the article should not be deleted.
Isler gave concerts in well-known concert halls (Carnegie, Symphony Space), which were reviewed in renowned newspapers (NYT).
He appeared on reputable radio programmes (WQXR-FM, WWFM).
He has recorded 5 CDs which have been reviewed in professional journals.
He teaches at a well-known school (HackettHackley).
All this combined means to me that he is "notable".
By the way, the article exists on the German Wikipedia since 14 April, and it will soon appear on the French one as well.--Peteremueller (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteremueller: Ok, and? That doesn't automatically mean it is worthy of the English Wikipedia. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to the deletion of this page. This artist debuted at Carnegie Recital Hall. Another overreach by this editor. Valueyou (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valueyou: The fact that he deubuted at a certain venue doesn't give an ounce of notability. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmartyPants22: @Peteremueller: You clowning? From the Carnegie Hall page "Carnegie Hall...is one of the most prestigious venues in the world for both classical music and popular music..." KEEP IT - with best wishes back to you Valueyou (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valueyou: That's not an argument against deletion; the venue doesn't give inherent notability to the person. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To address the nomination statement, our notability guidelines say that a subject is considered notable if there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There is no additional statement saying "apart from those sources that are the most likely to exist for the subject", which, in this case, are reviews. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no claims in the article that make the subject likely to meet WP:MUSICBIO The references on the article do not clearly meet WP:GNG, my search for references found several promotion and/or trivial mentions. I do not see any evidence that the subject is Notable per English Wikipedia criteria. Jeepday (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the dedicated New York Times piece is a clear sign of notability together with the other reviews already in the article so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more thoughts on passing general notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the New York Times piece, and also as founder of the label Kasp Records. Daiaespera (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Daiaespera. We shouldn't ignore the NYT reference Mommmyy (talk) 17:20, 27 May 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 merge to Health Canada. Missvain (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supriya Sharma[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Presented sources do not cover the subject in-depth. The article is written in newstyle. Hitro talk 07:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Health Canada, the individual is not notable but the role of Health Canada in the COVID 19 pandemic is. --hroest 16:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We see her on the news every so often, I'm not sure this makes her notable. I think it's more of a public relations job than an actual ministerial-level job. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:30, 20 May 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. Not convinced this subject meets English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyahu Baal Shem of Worms[edit]

Eliyahu Baal Shem of Worms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sole source does not provide support for the content. eg. no birth date is given and it states he arrived in Worms in 1590, although the article states he died in 1583? The only source also seems to be a fictional work. I removed the second source as it related to Elijah Loans. There is no other RS for this person. Chesdovi (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Chesdovi (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contest. I removed the dates of birth and death since they are not sourced. The source cited, The Lubavitcher Rabbi's Memoirs, although written hagiographically, is by no means a work of fiction. -- -- -- 03:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The author provides no source to corroborate the existence of this rabbi, also unsure whether he is considered notable enough for an article that will never be more than a one line stub (now also without birth & death dates...). But I need to check R' Aryeh Kaplan's Mediation and Kabbalah as he seems to make mention of a couple of personalities known by this name. Chesdovi (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see Hebrew Wikipedia article he:ה'ש"ן which cites the Lubavitcher Rabbi's לקוטי דבורים which states the information written in the article matter-of-factly. -- -- -- 01:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But does that book constitute WP:RS? I doubt it. Chesdovi (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chesdovi, on what basis would you claim that the book isn't reliable? -- -- -- 13:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of demonstrated notability. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:27, 20 May 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 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marquette Airlines[edit]

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

Article is on an airline that *might* have operated a fleet of four small aircraft for six years. The one source in the article is non-RS and appears to be uncertain if this airline even existed. A WP:BEFORE on newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR does find a one mention in a telephone directory and another in a list of operating certificate holders but nothing that helps this pass WP:NORG. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the New York Times ran a one-paragraph Associated Press story on July 4, 1940, stating that the Civil Aeronautics Authority had denied TWA's application to purchase Marquette Airlines, which the story implies was only operating service between Detroit and St. Louis at that time. This implies that the TWA purchase discussed on the Aerofiles website may not have actually happened, but it proves that Marquette Airlines existed and operated flights, at least in mid 1940. Further research in the newspaper archives of its destination cities is warranted. Carguychris (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it proves that Marquette Airlines existed and operated flights" Merely proving the existence of something does not demonstrate its notability. I exist but I don't warrant a WP article. Chetsford (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Community consensus on WP:AVIATION is that airlines that have been granted an AOC and have operated revenue flights are typically notable. Also, judging by the number of newspaper articles that are surfacing, it seems likely that Marquette will clearly meet WP:GNG and WP:NORG due to the TWA vs CAA merger smackdown if nothing else. Carguychris (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NORG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Below is a sampling of a quick search of "Marquette Airlines" between 1936 and 1950 on newspapers.com:
  • "TWA Purchase of Marquette Lines Approved by CAB", [United Press Wire] St. Louis Star-Times, 20 Dec 1940, p.7
  • "TWA Fights Marquette", [Associated Press], St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 1 Mar 1939, p. 6
  • "New St.Louis - Cincinnatti - Detroit Airline in prospect if Sale of Marquette Airlines is Approved by Civil Aeronautics Autohority." - Cincinnati Enquirer, 15 Oct 1939, p. 35
  • "TWA Buying Marquette as Feeder Route" - Chicago Tribune, 11 Oct 1939, p. 29
  • "Marquette Airlines Sold to TWA for $350,000" - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10 Oct 1939, p. 3
  • "Inquiry is Dropped to Aid Airline Sale" - The Cincinnati Enquirer, 19 Oct 1941, p. 39
  • "U.S. Air Firm Probe Has an Echo Here" - The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), 22 Apr 1940, p. 6
  • - and many more. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just edited to add some more details and reliable sources. Sekicho (talk) 23:15, 21 May 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. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Tseng[edit]

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

Well-meaning but premature article about an AscProf at UBC that was jumped out of draft after two declines at AfC (mix-up with previous draft of the same name - see below), so I guess we need to make a detour here. I don't see any indication of passing WP:GNG, and as per publication history and professional position, no chance at WP:NPROF either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryGrandma: to be precise, the identical draft was declined at AfC (three times actually), with this duplicate being moved to main from the sandbox between declines 2 & 3. So yes, it 's a bit of a mess. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a duplicate. A coincidence. The AfC draft was started in January by an IP from Ontario. This article started in a student's subpage, User:Leeperhb/Michelle Tseng, in April by a student from the University of Washington in a class that started at the end of March. The text is different. I don't see how they are related. The student never submitted the article at AfC - a reviewer put the decline template on the subpage after declining the other article at AfC, even though the student's article had the WikiEd dashboard template at the top. (Admittedly that template doesn't say it is a WikiEd student template.) I believe the class is writing articles about people they are learning about in the class. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, the decline template was copied over from the draft. That's a little misleading - probably not a good practice. - In any case, looks like both treatments run to the same content; at least there seem to be no differences in sourcing that would suggest a different notability assessment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to see if the WikiEd template can be modified to be more informative. I think that would prevent things like this. The notability issues are about the person, not about whichever article we are looking at. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:TOOSOON for academic notability and no evidence of general notability. I'm concerned about potential editors being driven away from Wikipedia by badly-planned course projects that fail to guide the students towards more clearly notable subjects and lead to their work getting slapped down at AfD, but that's not a problem that can or should be fixed by making the wrong decision at the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just needs more independent references, rather than her own papers. Added 4. Nfitz (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can only identify 2 non-independent references, I feel that is a good amount based on the information I gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeperhb (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leeperhb, at a first glance none of the references are independent of her. Which ones do you mean? The requirements for a researcher to be notable enough in Wikipedia's use of the term are listed at WP:NPROF. Tseng is much to early in her career to meet them. And she hasn't had things written about her - quoting her doesn't count. Did your instructor talk about Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles? Your class has produced many well-written articles. It would have been nice if more of them were about people who were already well-enough known in Wikipedia's sense for an article. It seems like a waste of work. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
StarryGrandma Most of the references I added are independent of her, CBC, France 24, Daily Mirror (which I admit is sometimes a problematic source, but this seems to match other publications). How are they not independent? Even the Evolutionary Applications one is a bit of both. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, the CBC article very short and is about beetles. It is based on her research but the article is not about her. The content of the CBC article comes from the paper she and her students wrote and an interview with her. There is no independent reporting, and only a very brief description of her. The France 24 article is another short article about the beetles based on her paper. I can't see the Daily Mail article but I assume they picked up the same material. Sources to show notability need to be reliable, independent, and have significant coverage (all 3 at once) - name mention is not enough. The substantial material about her in the Evolutionary Applications article was written by her. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:16, 27 May 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 14:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moonilonnu[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Only things found were film database sites and promotional material.

PROD removed by creator with no explanation. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 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. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ysabelle Cuevas[edit]

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

Very weak coverage. "Popular" = notable. Fails WP:GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has more than a few passing mentions in sources in Gnews, mostly Filipino sources. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The above "Keep" voter stated "more than a few passing mentions" which is unconvincing and shows no evidence of actually reading any of them. Yes, Ms. Cuevas did get some media mentions but they are almost all related to one event, in which she covered a famous group's song and the famous group mentioned it in their social media. That does not make Ms. Cuevas notable in her own right. All of her other media presence is in the form of short introductions at PR-oriented websites and basic entries at the usual streaming services. Not notable per WP:1E and (charitably) WP:TOOSOON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom . No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 21:57, 23 May 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Seppänen[edit]

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

Youth motorsport racer, fails WP:GNG: only coverage is from specialty websites. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an somewhat borderline case of a kid competing in a relatively new series whose level of significance hasn't been well established yet. If anyone is able to check what sort of coverage they've received in non-Anglophone sources that may be useful here. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All sources are correct and reliable. Of course the coverage comes from speciality websites, this is an up-and-coming racing driver, where do you expect to find stuff about him? Naturally, motorsport media outlets. Definitely is notable enough and does not fail WP:TOOSOON. He's not an amateur, he's a professional driver, 3rd in ADAC F4 (the most prestigious F4 championship) last season and racing in FREC/FRECA, the step between FIA F3 and F4. It might be a relatively new series but it's the continuation of Formula Renault Eurocup and (indirectly) European F3, and is significantly covered all around Europe. MSport1005 (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The coverage is not sufficiently significant and/or independent for GNG. TOOSOON. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:20, 20 May 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 13:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Shootfighters[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, can't find anything substantial in a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 13:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Nominator. Doe snot meet WP:ORG.Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence that this is a WP notable topic. The article's only reference is to a set of pictures with no significant text. My own search found some passing mentions about fighters training there and appearances in directories of London MMA training sites, but no significant independent coverage of this gym in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 24 May 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 13:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Lounge[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a public access television program, not making any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, every TV show is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it existed -- reliable source coverage about the show, in sources independent of itself, has to be present to verify the show's significance. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to give it a free pass in the absence of any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage, but the article has been flagged for lacking sources since 2007 without ever having any sources added. Bearcat (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite my love for these old school cult programs, I can't find any reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly to qualify it under WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 01:17, 25 May 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 13:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James West (businessman)[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, this article was copy-pasted from the declined draft version -> Draft:James West (businessman) QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 20 May 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 per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Man (Ed Sheeran song)[edit]

New Man (Ed Sheeran song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The song doesn't pass WP:NSongs guidelines as there is no independent coverage apart from album reviews. Charting only indicates that a song may be notable, not that it is notable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on. Charting/certifications aren't a guarantee of notability. But they are an indicator. And we've got 20 separate indicators here. I know we all draw the line differently, but at a certain point you've got to look at the odds and use a little common sense. You do a lot of good nominations, but some of them, like these type, are a waste of time for the community. This is not the type of song that NSONGS is intended to eliminate. What you're doing borders on wiki-lawyering. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per above. It was a UK top 5 hit and even achieved a year-end UK chart position within the top 100. Notability has been established. Carbrera (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep reaching the top five in the UK shows the song was a huge success. Also found a reliable source talking about the song [35]. Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, here we go again. Granted, MarioSoul is right press coverage mainly about the song itself is non-existent, but... top five hit in the UK... five official gold/platinum certifications... Do I have to say anything else? Also Keep per the fact that it would be WP:TOOBIG for any info about this song to fit on either the album article or his discography list, given how massive Sheeran is as an artist. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above arguments. I think Sergecross73 put it best when he said this is not the sort of article that NSONGS was created to eliminate. Ss112 04:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The notability of the song has already been clearly demonstrated. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do understand MarioSoulTruthFan's rationale as charting by itself is not an absolute sign of notability, but I do agree with Sergecross73's assessment that this was not the intention of WP:NSONG. With that being said, I do not consider this nomination an instance of wiki-lawyering. I have been convinced by the above arguments to vote keep. Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kassogtha[edit]

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

Previously deleted by PROD for lack of notability; now republished by the same editor, but still no sign of notability — the sources cited come nowhere near to RS sigcov, and a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BAND. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how the band under the current name (Kassogtha) passes NBAND or GNG. The previous name ("Deus Ex Machina") is an impossible search term (used too widely, not in this context), but the lead singer and founder (Stephany Huguenin or Stephanie Hugnin) doesn't appear meet GNG.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. it fail to meet Wikipedia Notability rules Samat lib (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:06, 24 May 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Van Tongeren[edit]

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

Non-notable performer. While the subject has worked on multiple notable projects, it has not garnered significant press for him. The only pause for concern is the "numerous awards" which are entirely unsourced. If they are recognizing him directly, it might be worth keeping. They seem to be for his scores for shows, yet none of that has garnered press for him. WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing out as nominator has withdrawn. Lesliechin1 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 20 May 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. Missvain (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trio (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)[edit]

Trio (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An overly detailed article about a non-notable topic with no sources. The entire article is likely WP:OR and belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. Furthermore, each one of these characters already have their own articles (which probably should be deleted too). Rusf10 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Found this Vulture feature mainly about the trio. Pieces about the show's sixth season, such as from Digital Spy, Vanity Fair and Junkee, make the trio a frequent point of discussion; the Junkee source even highlights the trio as making the season bad "for a punishing misogyny", and discuss this problem and the Trio overall for four paragraphs!!! Another Vulture piece doesn't discuss it as much, but still makes a significant claim about the Trio being an example of the season's controversial misogyny, which in turn was one the show creator's most notorious moments in entertainment history. One paragraph in this review criticizes the Trio. Their presence in the show is also heavily analyzed in academic literature, such as [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], and a lot more analyzed for the character's outsiderness among many other things. The article needs to be WP:TNT'd so that it's not just a character summary you can find on a wiki, and also so these reliable sources are incorporated. However, this is a notable topic so it should be kept. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll also alternatively recommend to merge in the article about the show's sixth season, if it is not WP:TOOBIG to fit, that is. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • HumanxAnthro, Just a comment that you invoke TNT and that says 'delete' with no prejudice to recreation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wait, that term means delete? I thought it was a term to just start over writing an article entirely. Well, thanks for letting me know. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • HumanxAnthro, Over-writing an article entirely is no different from deleting it and writing a new one. The only difference is whether we have a crappy placeholder in the meantime or not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it doesn't. Deletion and creating something anew removes an edit history. Rewriting keeps an edit history, from which verifiable content can be resurrected if sourced. The abovegiven idea that rewriting from scratch is the same as deletion is false. That said, I recommend not using the silly jargon terms and shortcuts as if they were words, and instead describing things in terms of real actions: rewrite, delete, and suchlike. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an AfD outcome, but I have no objection to an appropriate merge to BtVS S6, which is an appropriate parent topic. At least, this article should be a WP:SS subordinate to the S6 article, because the group only exists as "the trio" within S6.
    • Also, Rusf10 while it may seem like an inordinate amount of articles exist around the Buffyverse, that's in part because of Slayage so that pretty much every fictional element down to Miss Kitty Fantastico has someone who's written at least one peer-reviewed article discussing it, if not two. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Draftify per WP:TNT. Although sources may exist, there is nothing even remotely well written enough in this article to be worth keeping - any future iteration of this article would require a substantive rewrite. I would also like the point out that all three members of the Trio already have their own articles, which although also in poor condition are at least in better shape than this one. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the terrible state of the article - unreferneced plotcruft. WP:TNT-case. If someone improves this now, with reception section and so on, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Secondary sources have be found that show that the topic meets WP:GNG. Of course the article needs a lot of improvement. Is everything currently in it useless? It is extensive, unsourced plot-summary. That would need to be trimmed and sourced (although primary sources are in many parts already given in the text, just not as citations), but plot-summary would still be part of a good article about the topic. So in my opinion, it can be improved by editing and is therefore not a case of WP:TNT. If someone prefers to build the article from the ground up rather than incrementally improving it, writing a draft and then replacing the current content is a possible way to go. In the meantime, if anyone is interested in the topic, they are better of with the version we have now than with no version. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definitely on board with the TNT the current mess opinion. I don't really know if this actually needs an article from a content management standpoint. If the three character articles are independently notable and remain, then there's no particular need for the grouping to have more than a summary on the character list/season article as suggested above. You'd need maybe two paragraphs of plot content for context, and that can easily be handled within the three character articles/season article/character list. If the three characters are not independently notable but have a couple sources each, then you might be able to form something decent by merging the four together. The article as it stands is unworkable plot summary that should be completely removed. It'd be harder for someone to edit it into anything manageable than it would be just to start from scratch. TTN (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has coverage in reliable sources.★Trekker (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • *Treker, Which ones? None have been added to the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ones I brought up in this discussion. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • HumanxAnthro, Given your findings, how about spending 15m adding a summary of them to the article? Then I might be tempted to withdraw my delete vote, or even change it to keep. Everyone wins, including the readers. How does this sound? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I could, but that requires interpreting what's in the academic literature, and they write in such a needlessly complicated way it would take forever away. Delete if this is a big deal, but I'm here to proof the talk page. Even if the article is deleted, we're not really losing much and we can always re-write the article with the sources I provided in the future. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NEXIST, Piotrus, and you know better. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 6)#Plot. The above sources do not cover this topic as independently notable from season six. All discussion of this plot element are confined to in-universe discussion of season six. Thus the best course of action is to cover within the existing season six article in summary style. Nothing sourced to merge. czar 06:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable as there are lots of sources, as discussed above. WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline. The actual policies are WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT which state that "Perfection is not required ... Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources linked in AFD, although agree with skeptics that they should be integrated into the article. Buffy is an unusually well-covered show with lots of proper academic journal articles and the like; even if sources had been spottier, it'd have been quite reasonable to assume that such sources did exist, and deletion is not cleanup. Agree that lots of the article is currently a plot summary, but it seems very reasonable to assume that a sourced reception section is writable here. SnowFire (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M&N Aviation[edit]

M&N Aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Article is on a regional airline that operates six small executive jets. It has one RS in article, which contains a one-sentence mention. A WP:BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com, finds two additional references, neither of which are RS. Chetsford (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. To be fair, I wouldn't call the company's Falcon 900EX a "small executive jet". However, I'm not seeing much in the way of independent news coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. There's an article on ainonline.com, "Caribbean Charter Providers Team Up" on March 9, 2020 [44] that seems to come close, but reads like a direct publication of a press release and that's just one article, not multiple. I even crawled through the company's facebook page thinking that if there was going to be some news coverage, they'd put it there, but could not find anything. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing how this meets NORG/GNG. WP:CORPSPAM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 26 May 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. Closing this one early per wp:snow. Missvain (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riniki Bhuyan[edit]

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

Non-notable. Earlier A7 speedy request was rejected on the basis that claims of notability exist. Still not quite sure what those are, but fine, let's see what the AfD folks make of it. I don't think being the spouse a Chief Minister of Indian state is inherently notable. Neither is owning some media assets. Nor having played tennis. Nor having won a couple of non-notable awards. (And most of those claims are not supported by citations, anyway.) A search finds mostly social media listings, and a few articles mentioning her in the context of being the CM's wife, but I haven't found anything that would add up to sigcov. Therefore fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO (can't be more specific about what type of bio, as it's not entirely clear to me what this person's primary role is). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Notability can't be inherited. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the spouse of a state chief minister is not default notable, and this is the only way Bhuyan would be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete presumably promotional, because here is no likely notability DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by a relationship to notable people, lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: poor coverage, not notable. Darktaste (talk) 12:51, 24 May 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 keep. Nomination by Chetsford was withdrawn, no non-keep !votes remained, and 7 days passed. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Air Vermont[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Article on an airline that existed for three years and operated a fleet of two 15 passenger aircraft. One non-RS ref in article. A WP:BEFORE on Google News, JSTOR and newspapers.com fails to find any other RS. Chetsford (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC); edited 05:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When searching newspapers.com for a company with a name that is made up of common words, make sure you enclose the name in quotation marks, so you're not searching through articles with the word "Vermont" or the word "Air" in them. Also you can narrow your date range just to the years when the company was in operation to help weed out false hits. That said, a very quick search on newspapers.com turns up numerous newspaper articles about this company and its operations, so the article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Here's just a few:

  • "Air Vermont Management Settlement Near" - Rutland Daily Herald, Feb 23, 1984, p. 9
  • "Safety Questions Clip Air Vermont's Wings" - The Burlington Free Press, Jan 22, 1984, p. 8
  • "Air Vermont announces plans to halt air service here Jan.2" - The Berkshire Eagle, Dec 23 1984, p. 9
  • "Airline Flying Again; 2 Executives Resign" - The Burlington Free Press, Feb 4, 1984, p. 12
  • "Disputed Plane Flown Away From Airport" - Rutland Daily Herald, Jan 10 1984, p. 4
  • "Financially Ailing Air Vermont Folds Its Wings" - The Burlington Free Press, Mar 3, 1984, p. 1
  • "Air Vermont to add Pittsfield to New York-Burlington flights" - The Berkshire Eagle, Oct 19, 1983, p. 1
  • "Air Vermont files bankruptcy petition" - The Bennington Banner, Jan 31, 1984, p. 5
  • and there are tons more.

- RecycledPixels (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Oh my goodness - thank you RecycledPixels! I just double-checked to see what I did and apparently I added the "Virginia" filter to newspapers.com and not "Vermont"! Thank you for catching this - with that I withdraw and !vote Keep as nom. Chetsford (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 20 May 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. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superhuman (music)[edit]

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

An article on a band that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NBAND. It was created back in 2015 by a WP:SPA who, based on the username, was one of the two members of the group. The article is currently completely unsourced. While a WP:BEFORE search does verify that they have provided the music for multiple movie trailers as stated in the article, there is not any actual coverage on the band or their music that I can find. Rorshacma (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's this, but that alone would not persuade me to !vote keep here. I am not yet seeing evidence that would overcome the problems the nominator identifies. Chubbles (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I actually found that during my Before search. My issues with it are that I'm not sure if interviews would really count as secondary, and that its questionable if "Trailer Music News" could be considered a reliable source. If the article winds up being kept, this could be used as a source to verify some of the information in it, but I didn't feel it actually did much for establishing the actual notability of the group. Rorshacma (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SPA article creation aside, I feel bad for voting delete because it does appear that they actually do a lot of music for big name trailers and such and it's very hard for the "little people" involved in the film industry to reach notability unless they happen to win an Oscar. That said, they don't meet our notability standards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They appear to have met the notability standards through rule 10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." multiple times. See their IMBD works for more.Isaiah (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom . after my google search verification , the topic of this article has NO significant WP:RS ,i see NO evidence of Notability -- it Fails Wikipedia Notability General rules Samat lib (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's currently zero references in the article. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:59, 27 May 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. Doing us all a favor. Missvain (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Dattani[edit]

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

Clear conflict of interest as DrUniverse is editing their own page, adding affiliations which are incorrect with the intention of making Wikipedia serve as a source of false information, and to be honest this person isn't particularly noteworthy. Further, This page has actually been deleted before for the same general reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikesh_S._Dattani TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Speedy Delete: We discussed 4 papers under C1 and any opposition was primarily based on the number of citations (one user also had concerns about attribution). I argued/argue that:
(1) was a paper with 100+ GS citations in a very low-citation area (spectroscopy of molecules with only 2 atoms – fundamental but not exciting),
(2) was a paper on integer factorization which had 55 GS citations but broke a record and got a lot of news coverage[1][2][3][4][5][6],
(3) was a paper on quantum dynamics which has almost 100 GS citations, but it's value should not be measured by the number of citations because the paper's purpose was to state that a certain hot (at the time) topic was not as interesting as originally claimed by others. If it worked, people would stop publishing on that specific topic and there would be no citations. The paper got citations since it also introduced a faster implementation of an algorithm, but in the long-run the value should be assessed based on things other than citations (which I admit can be harder to convince people with).
(4) was a paper in computational biology with only 28 GS citations but it introduced a method that was later used in a paper with 100+ citations/year since it connected the origin of COVID to bats in early 2020.
On the surface, none of (1)-(4) seem exceptionally highly cited (except perhaps the first one), but they haven't been around for too long either and some of them are valuable for reasons that citations won't show. Furthermore, I have never seen one person have 4 borderline C1 cases made in 4 completely different fields, within such a short time, and at such a young age. The discussion only fortified my opinion about notability.
My suggestion to use C2 seems to have been an error because it's actually used pretty much only for later-career awards. Dr. Universe (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion was proposed by an SPA created for the sole purpose so far of deleting the article, and made several claims (attacks) without proof:
- "Clear conflict of interest as DrUniverse is editing their own page" (Unproven and seemingly retracted later in the discussion)
- "adding affiliations which are incorrect" (No answer given when asked which affiliations)
- "with the intention of making Wikipedia serve as a source of false information" (Speculation about what someone's intentions were)
- "and to be honest this person isn't particularly noteworthy" later added "for our field" (Did not answer when asked which field, the C1 discussions have spanned 4 different fields)
- "This page has actually been deleted before for the same general reasons" but:
The following reasons were given for the previous deletion: (1) author has only 14 publications, (2) only three papers with 10+ citations, (3) single-digit h-index, (4) lack of secondary sources). The author now has an h-index of 20 on Google Scholar, 30 papers with 10+ citations, 3 papers with 100+ citations, 1200+ citations overall, and was covered by secondary/independent articles in the media for breaking the record for "largest number factored on a quantum device".
Therefore, it seems all 5 accusations made in the SPA's proposal are false and the user is currently being investigated for sockpupetting and meatpupetting.
My !vote therefore changed from "keep" to "strong keep". However the attackers in the form of sockpuppets and meatpuppets described in the admin comment below, show up in ways in the version history which don't reflect the values of Wikipedia and don't look good on the subject of the article either. So please delete as soon as convenient (as the author of most of the content, this is akin to G7 but not necessarily labeled as such since we're already in the 7th day at AfD). If the notability becomes more "indisputable" in the future, a different user can create it. Dr. Universe (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the beginning I suggested to keep on the following grounds:
  • "Criterion 1 can be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea".
  • An inventor of the MLR potential which has been cited in over 100 publications and for over 20 different molecules (almost all of them by entirely different authors, see a partial list here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse/Long-range_potential#Applications). His paper on the subject was described, for example, as a "landmark in diatomic spectral analysis" by a group of entirely different authors[7].
  • His work in 2014 was highly publicized by multiple independent media outlets[1][8][9][10][11][12].
  • His article published in JCTC in 2015, "Why Quantum Coherence Is Not Important in the Fenna–Matthews–Olsen Complex" after about a decade of debate about whether or not quantum coherence is important in the FMO, answered the question at last. An article published in PNAS two years later by entirely different authors had almost the same title "Nature does not rely on long-lived electronic quantum coherence for photosynthetic energy transfer" confirming his 2015 answer.[13]

References

  1. ^ a b "New largest number factored on a quantum device is 56,153".
  2. ^ "Quantum computing is so powerful it takes two years to understand what happened".
  3. ^ "Ny rekord for faktorisering med kvantecomputer: 56.153 = 241 x 233". 7 December 2014.
  4. ^ "Computing's Search for the Best Quantum Questions - Quanta Magazine".
  5. ^ "Quantum factorization of 44929 with only 4 qubits". 27 November 2014.
  6. ^ Ферапонтов, Илья. "Пока наши компьютеры — тренировочные игрушки". nplus1.ru.
  7. ^ L-Y. Tang; Z-C. Yan; T-Y. Shi; J. Mitroy (30 November 2011). "Third-order perturbation theory for van der Waals interaction coefficients". Physical Review A. 84 (5): 052502. Bibcode:2011PhRvA..84e2502T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.84.052502.
  8. ^ "Quantum computing is so powerful it takes two years to understand what happened".
  9. ^ "Ny rekord for faktorisering med kvantecomputer: 56.153 = 241 x 233". 7 December 2014.
  10. ^ "Computing's Search for the Best Quantum Questions - Quanta Magazine".
  11. ^ "Quantum factorization of 44929 with only 4 qubits". 27 November 2014.
  12. ^ Ферапонтов, Илья. "Пока наши компьютеры — тренировочные игрушки". nplus1.ru.
  13. ^ Wilkins, David M.; Dattani, Nikesh S. (2015). "Why Quantum Coherence Is Not Important in the Fenna–Matthews–Olsen Complex". Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. 11 (7): 3411–3419. arXiv:1411.3654. doi:10.1021/ct501066k. PMID 26575775.
@Seemplex:, if you look at his history of page edits, it is clear that he is strongly invested in making this page and is writing it in a way that nobody other than him could actually write it. For example, he managed to track down mostly irrelevant undergraduate work for his page. Furthermore, this page was actually deleted before and he has remade it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikesh_S._Dattani 147.226.103.110 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — 147.226.103.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@147.226.103.110: My basis for this was the first person nature of the talk page and page edits. Thank you for bringing this up. TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incline to keep per Dr. Universe. I'll retract this if you can provide proof that Dr. Universe is "editing their own page" with a "clear conflict of interest". Seemplez 08:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Seemplez: The user A.S. Brown apparently knows Nike Dattani in real life as suggested by this October 2019 edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nike_Dattani#Possible_BLP_violations?. I have pinged A.S. Brown and got a response, so maybe this may soon clear things up. Dr. Universe (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dr. Universe: Ah, I see. @TheLawGiverOfDFT: Please don't make false claims that someone is "editing their own page". Seemplez 10:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, was I little busy as of late. I have met Dr. Dattani once, in October 2019 and exchanged emails a couple of times, but that was the limit of my interaction. He was very unfamilar with Wikipedia, and asked for my help after meeting me by chance at an university library. To the best of my knowedge, he did not have an account with Wikipedia. --A.S. Brown (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have been accused here of "adding affiliations which are incorrect with the intention of making Wikipedia serve as a source of false information". I only added affiliations for which there were references from reliable sources not created by the subject of the article itself. If you can prove that any affiliation is incorrect, it ought to be removed. The list of affiliations is a bit long in any case, so it can certainly be shortened entirely. Dr. Universe (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Possible Meatpupetting with this account: this user. Dft4wiki and TheLawGiverOfDFT both did the same thing at almost the same time, which was to add a "proposed deletion" template to a page that in nearly 3 years never went up for deletion, and both used Single purpose accounts. Both have the letters "DFT" in their usernames. Just a reminder that "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited". Dr. Universe (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible further sockpupetting or meatpupetting associated with the deletion proposer (see edits here by anonymous user 147.226.103.110 with no previous edit history and getting backed up by original deletion proposer only 13 minutes later). Dr. Universe (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The citation record doesn't convince me of WP:NPROF C1 in what I understand to be a very high citation field. There was some press coverage of one paper, but it looks like a WP:BLP1E situation, particularly in balance with the promotional and overly-detailed article. I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON for this 2009 PhD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the paper that you say looks like a BLP1E is only his 5th most cited paper: other papers of his have more than double as many citations as it. There is no argument here against C1 on the grounds of being an inventor of the Morse/Long-range potential and answering the question of whether or not quantum coherence is necessary in the FMO complex and the work in discrete optimization and quadratization. I also see no argument here against C2. If it was stronger case of BLP1E and there wasn't 3 or 4 other contributions that were even more cited, I wouldn't be quoting this notability guideline here: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Dr. Universe (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I absolutely do not see any serious indication of WP:NPROF C1. The awards in the article certainly do not indicate C2 (clarification added later: they are all early career awards, given for promise as much as for accomplishment). I'm growing concerned about the WP:BLUDGEON being applied to this AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate the feedback! For C1 I'm a bit skeptical about your judgement since your work is in topological combinatorics and the article is about someone who's most notable work was in chemistry, biology, and quantum computing, but I'll take a step back now. About the bludgeon: a great deal of comments were in response to accusations made in the original deletion proposal which were given without proof, and concerns that three single-purpose-accounts have all been created very recently to spearhead this deletion proposal (2 acted on the article itself, and 2 commented here, including one with an IP address as their username). Dr. Universe (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking "weak". The WP:BLUDGEON wall of text and its lack of meaningful content has convinced me that the notability case is weaker than I first saw. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I started the proposal with the intention of seeing this get deleted. Dr. Universe's defensiveness is enough to convince me that this is at the least his pet project of a page. I do not believe it meets notability standards for our field and think this is an appropriate deletion, even if there is a chance Dr. Universe is not Nike somehow. TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. The nomination of a page for deletion is considered to implicitly be a recommendation to delete. I struck the second !vote above to make it clear that this is not an additional user participating. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll note the Morse/long-range potential article was also created by Dr. Universe, so the pre-eminence of being the creator of a wiki-notable tool should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. But even if it is a relatively well-known model, Dattani is one of several authors and was merely a PhD student when it was being developed, so his involvement is that of a contributing junior investigator. Therefore the significant impact part of C1 is not met, and he falls far, far short of meeting any other NPROF criteria. Here is the Scopus comparison of Dattani and all 105 of his coauthors with more than 8 papers (which is an extremely low cutoff for this extremely high-publication field):
Total citations: average: 5060, median: 1512, Dattani: 548.
Papers: avg: 95, med: 42, D: 19.
h-index: avg: 25, med: 18, D: 11.
Top citations: 1st: avg: 689, med: 198, D: 145. 2nd: avg: 342, med: 143, D: 99. 3rd: avg: 251, med: 88, D: 80. 4th: avg: 200, med: 68, D: 59. 5th: avg: 169, med: 61, D: 27.
Highest first author: avg: 260, med: 100, D: 27. JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback! While your intentions were good (and I have no doubt!) when quoting those citation metrics, I think they are misleading (not your fault at all!). In quantum computing, which is one of Dr. Dattani's major research areas, it has become common to publish on arXiv only, intentionally. arXiv papers unfortunately do not show up in your Scopus analysis. For example, this paper by Sergey Bravyi (easily one of the most respected players in the field of quantum computing) has 99 citations in 4 years, would it be fare to exclude this article in your type of analysis? Likewise, Dr. Dattani's 5th most cited paper would not have been included in your analysis at all, because it's an arXiv only paper, but it's also perhaps the most notable due to its presence in the media in several different languages. All that being said, it is indeed true that Dattani is not a very senior researcher and hence is not cited as much as the "median" or "average" scientists in his fields of study. I'm extremely opposed to using Scopus to analyze his citations in comparison to his 105 co-authors who will largely be from his 2019 paper which had 50+ co-authors alone, and was in quantum chemistry not quantum computing. Your intentions were certainly good, but I strongly discourage using that citation data! Another thing that I very much disagree with is that, while I agree that the timeline would suggest he was a PhD student during the publication of the MLR paper, you absolutely cannot say his contribution was minor because of that. Donna Strickland recently shared the Nobel Prize in physics with her graduate-level supervisor for a paper that she published as a graduate student. Furthermore, you note that there were multiple authors on the MLR paper but 4 of them are experimentalists and 2 of them are theorists. The paper is not notable for the experiment (see the actual papers that cite the MLR paper and what part the citing sentence refers to) but for the potential that was introduced in it to successfully analyze the experiment, and this was only 2 co-authors. John Coxon is listed as a co-inventor of the MLR potential more for his role in the introduction of the MLR3 a bit later. The MLR potential was also extended and applied in subsequent papers by only Dattani and LeRoy or Dattani himself, not just the 2009 one. Also, I don't know why you call his field an "extremely high-publication field". Why is that? Nonetheless, I do agree 8 publications is a low cut-off, and I don't think the Scopus citation data is worth much in this discussion, unfortunately (50+ of those co-authors come from one single paper which has extremely highly cited authors like Don Truhlar (h-index 180 !) but Dattani does not regularly publish in that field! This is also apparent as in 2 years the paper with Truhlar has almost 200 citations, and his next highest-cited paper over his entire career has only 150 citations (the paper with 50+ authors is an outlier that skews those numbers). Thanks again for your input! The citation analysis had me raising my eyebrows for a second, and I enjoyed trying to get to (near) the bottom of it. Dr. Universe (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condensed version of above response (if I'm becoming a bit over-zealous and causing bludgeon problems then perhaps my above paragraph can be removed, but it does provide more details):
- (1) You say C1 is not met because Dattani was young when he co-invented the MLR potential. That doesn't make sense to me. Plus:
- (1.5) I pointed out two other examples of C1 completely separate from the MLR (the "new largest number factored on a quantum computer" which received widespread media attention, and the answering of the question about whether or not quantum coherence matters in the FMO complex (there's 3 completely separate C1 arguments, not just the MLR).
- (2) It's true that I made the MLR Wikipedia page but that doesn't mean the MLR is not notable. It was called a "landmark in diatomic analysis" by independent authors, and has been used mainly by people other than Dattani. Just think about all the grad student diatomic spectroscopists that refer to that Wikipedia page to learn how the MLR potential works.
- (3) The citation analysis was done in good faith but ought to be ignored for several reasons: it compares to his 100+ co-authors but 50+ of them are from a single 2019 paper with some co-authors that are some of the most cited people on Earth (Don Truhlar with h-index 180), whereas almost all his other papers are in more esoteric fields that do not get that many citations and have completely different co-authors. He also publishes in a field where it's not uncommon to publish arXiv-only papers, which don't show up in Scopus, indeed his 5th most cited paper and some of his more substantial work are in this category. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr. Universe, if I remove the coauthors from the many-author paper his citation metrics are still much lower than the average and generally even the median within his fields (TC: 2614, 1296, 548; TP: 84, 49, 19; h: 22, 20, 11; 1st: 369, 138, 145; 2nd: 162, 102, 99; 3rd: 127, 72, 80; 4th: 110, 62, 59; 5th: 91, 59, 27; FA: 228, 95, 27). I've also manually added in citations from his preprints and recalculated his hindex (using the rather liberal numbers provided by Prophy) as well as new coauthors from them (although I have not added preprint citations from any of his other coauthors so their metrics will be lower). The preprints actually mostly increased the averages and medians of the metrics (format: all coauthors/no coauthors from big 2019 paper):
    :TC: 4841/2679, 1438/1139, 700; TP: 95/85, 42/43, 37; h: 24/22, 17/18, 14; 1st: 650/357, 172/142, 145; 2nd: 326/165, 123/97, 99; 3rd: 239/128, 82/70, 80; 4th: 190/108, 62/61, 59; 5th: 161/91, 59/56, 27; FA: 262/239, 100/95, 27.
    C1 asks for academics who are well above the "average professor", so even if his citation record was slightly above the average he would still not be considered notable from this parameter. I sympathize that his publications are spread over several differently-cited fields, but that is why I look at coauthors in the first place: to account for cross-disciplinary research. It would not be fair to compare him just to his quantum computing collaborators (which would artificially inflate his metrics relative to authors who don't publish in quantum chemistry), just as it wouldn't be fair to compare him just to quantum chem or bio coauthors.
    Regarding MLR, we cannot use WP:OR to attribute more responsibility for its development to him -- C1 requires this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. Being used in a dozens or even hundreds of other papers does not necessarily establish its significance (else we would have articles on thousands of novel biological reporters and ImageJ plugins and data analysis scripts on GitHub). And Strickland is first author on an article cited 3000 times and authored 8 other articles cited 100+ times; this is hardly comparable to being second author on a paper cited 80 times in 12 years. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Comparing Dattani to a Nobel Prize winning Donna Strickland is not the goal, I was saying that being "junior" doesn't mean being "unimportant", in fact often most of the work is done by junior researchers, but you're using the words "senior" and "junior" so much that I'm beginning to think you have strong opinions about that, so I'll leave it alone.
(2) Incorrect usage of the WP:OR reference. It says in the first paragraph: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." In fact, all of your citation analysis, is original research. All of your digging into the "author contributions" section of Dattani's biology paper in your comment below, is original research.
(3) Thanks for pointing out the part about "widely attributed to the person in question". I'll look into it! Dr. Universe (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Dr. Universe, "senior author" is standard terminology for describing the person (usually a PI) leading the research. "Junior" obviously doesn't mean "unimportant", but it also doesn't mean experimental results are automatically ascribed equally to all contributors, and they are especially not going to be widely attributed to the grad student second author of a 6-author paper where the other 5 authors are/were: #1 his PI, #3 an emeritus professor, #4 a distinguished CNRS directeur de recherche/prof, #5 a long-time CNRS chargé de recherche, and #6 another emeritus professor.
    (2) I'm not arguing that the policy of OR (or SYNTH, which is more what I intended) should be enforced here (although I can see how my wording could be interpreted that way); I am pointing out that the "widely attributed" requirement from C1 should not involve any synthetic extrapolation from what is verifiable. We can verify that he was second author on the MLR paper; we can not verify ... there were multiple authors on the MLR paper but 4 of them are experimentalists and 2 of them are theorists. The paper is not notable for the experiment (see the actual papers that cite the MLR paper and what part the citing sentence refers to) but for the potential that was introduced in it to successfully analyze the experiment, and this was only 2 co-authors. John Coxon is listed as a co-inventor of the MLR potential more for his role in the introduction of the MLR3 a bit later. The relative importance of the role Dattani played is not self-evident or verifiable, and therefore does not meet the relevant C1 subcriterion. JoelleJay (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) But the MLR potential is widely attributed to only that "junior" (back in 2009) author and his PI (LeRoy). The general concept originally introduced by LeRoy had an error that was corrected by Dattani who was 1st author on this in June 2008 and this in June 2009. In 2016, LeRoy (PI in Canada) and Pashov (PI in Bulgaria) published a software called betaFIT16 which calls this the "Dattani Correction". Said another way: LeRoy introduced a concept, but it had an error which was fixed in first-author papers by Dattani in 2008 and 2009, which by 2016 became known as the "Dattani Correction". The 6-author paper in October 2009 is an application of the MLR model (which was developed by LeRoy and Dattani) to experiments done by their co-authors, as per convention in diatomic spectroscopy at the time. The MLR model (which is a mathematical function used to help describe experiments) is not attributed to the emeritus professors or CNRS researchers that did the experiment and did not develop the model. In Dattani's 2018 solo-author work, he by himself when 10 years more senior generalized the MLR to describe molecules with more than 2 atoms. Your words "they are especially not going to be widely attributed to the grad student second author of a 6-author paper" contain assumptions without proof, even though I'm sure you're acting in good faith overall. I would have appreciated if you said "not likely going to be" rather than "not going to be". You cannot discount the possibility that a model is later widely attributed to a junior author, as is the case here. Likewise you say "the role Dattani played is not verifiable" instead of "not likely verifiable", and it turned out that the model contains a mathematical correction named after Dattani in a software co-authored by LeRoy and Pashov (and not Dattani). The above reference also says "Dattani's 'Quadratic-corrected' effective Cm values" and "implement Quadratic 'Dattani' MLR corrections", but never mentions any of the other 4 co-authors of the 6-author paper to which you refer. The attribution is given to Dattani rather than the emeritus and CNRS researchers.
    (2) You have said a lot about C1 for the MLR potential, but have said nothing about C1 for the above-mentioned 2-author quantum computing paper and 2-author FMO paper, both of which I'm sure you'll agree that Dattani was in fact the senior of the two authors. Dr. Universe (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) A namesake correction is attributed to him in the source code (not even the paper) for a program developed by his former PI that has all of 15 citations on Scopus. That absolutely does not indicate widespread attribution of MLR to Dattani, or even widespread attribution or use of the correction. C1 says ...it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. We would need "Dattani's correction" to have an exceptional number of citations in academic journals to demonstrate its significance. I am not finding anything on Google or Scopus that supports this. I don't doubt you that among researchers in this subfield the experimentalists may not be considered the "creators" of the tool in the same capacity as the theorists, but the only evidence you have for that is your assertion. In fact, everything I've seen points to Le Roy being attributed as the creator of MLR, although it is still not clear this DPF approach is actually widely used. And as far as I can tell, the two first-author "papers" from 2008/09 and the one from 2018 you mention are actually just unpublished symposium abstracts with zero citations. Those shouldn't be cited at all on wikipedia and certainly do not establish his role as anything beyond "grad student second-author" in the development of MLR.
      (2) The quantum computing paper got brief, minor popsci coverage -- we do not award wiki pages to every researcher whose results are profiled in the lay media. See WP:SUSTAINED. I don't know why you bring up the FMO paper since it clearly didn't [solve] a major problem [as demonstrated by] a substantial number of references to academic publications. 59 refs in 6 years isn't bad in this field, but it's not outstanding, which is what it needs to be if it's going to count toward NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said "Dattani is one of several authors and was merely a PhD student when it was being developed, so his involvement is that of a contributing junior investigator. Therefore the significant impact part of C1 is not met" — to which I said 4/6 authors were experimentalists and you said "we can't use OR" — I pointed out we can, and then you said the MLR is "especially not going to be widely attributed to the grad student second author of a 6-author paper where the other 5 authors are/were: #1 his PI, #3 an emeritus professor, #4 a distinguished CNRS directeur de recherche/prof, #5 a long-time CNRS chargé de recherche, and #6 another emeritus professor" — and so I found papers from earlier where he was first author and a software clearly indicating his contribution to the MLR while author #3, #4, #5 and #6 were not mentioned anywhere, confirming what I told you earlier which is that 4/6 of them are experimentalists and the model is only attributed to the first 2. Now you are insinuating that the reason why author #2 was mentioned in the software while the others weren't, was because the software was developed by author #2's PI. You're also complaining that the paper about the software has only 15 citations, but it's a 2016 paper that says in reference [43] that there was a 2013 version and a 2009 version. Reference [79] mentions another software implementing the MLR and there is another one called LEVEL which has 820 citations on Google Scholar and also has the same quadratic term of Dattani in it. You said "I don't doubt you that among researchers in this subfield the experimentalists may not be considered the "creators" of the tool in the same capacity as the theorists, but the only evidence you have for that is your assertion" — but no that is not what I said and that was not my only evidence. The experimentalists in this case are not considered creators of the MLR in any capacity, and I did give evidence beyond the "assertion", by showing you that the software doesn't consider any of the experimentalists creators of any part of it. In my first reply to you I thanked you and assumed good faith and tried to be friendly but I now worry that you are extremely invested into arguing for deletion. The extent to which you seem to want to defend your initial stance is something that I can't keep up with. I'm feeling WP:BADGERed as I thought "Not every rationale has to be explained in excruciating detail" but you wouldn't accept that the MLR is not attributed to the 4 experimentalists, and when I showed that none of them were mentioned in the software I showed you, you actually said more evidence would be needed and then said you're not convinced the DPF approach is widely used even though no one said anything about the DPF approach in the first place, so it feels like these persistent requests for evidence is approaching Sealioning. The criteria were described as "guidelines" so I didn't think I'd be persistently pushed to prove they are satisfied down to every single letter, and also: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". However, the fact the discussion has gone this long suggests to me there's at least one !vote which is "strong delete", so perhaps the article is WP:Too soon or just not notable enough. Dr. Universe (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr. Universe, what you have shown is the existence of subsequent work by Dattani and Dattani's PI that expands on the MLR software, including a correction directly attributed to him. We are supposed to glean from this and, I guess, the professional positions of the other MLR authors that he and Le Roy were the only theorists and therefore the only creators of MLR. This all relies entirely on your inference (which I don't doubt may be correct) rather than evidence of explicit attribution to Dattani. What we need is a substantial amount of published scholarship by independent researchers saying, e.g., "Le Roy and Dattani introduced..." (excluding inline citations of course). and so I found papers from earlier where he was first author and a software clearly indicating his contribution to the MLR while author #3, #4, #5 and #6 were not mentioned anywhere, confirming what I told you earlier which is that 4/6 of them are experimentalists and the model is only attributed to the first 2. I don't know what the earlier papers were meant to establish -- that he has been first author of symposium abstracts related to MLR? Both of those clearly list two of the "experimentalists" as well so that doesn't indicate they're not considered co-creators. Those also clearly don't count as evidence that MLR is widely attributed to him or even that he is a creator -- of course a grad student whose project includes a particular topic is going to be "first author" on their own conference presentations. Now you are insinuating that the reason why author #2 was mentioned in the software while the others weren't, was because the software was developed by author #2's PI. I'm saying someone's former PI mentioning a namesake correction in the source code of a different program is very far from demonstrating widespread attribution of the original program to them. {{You're also complaining that the paper about the software has only 15 citations, but it's a 2016 paper that says in reference [43] that there was a 2013 version and a 2009 version. Reference [79] mentions another software implementing the MLR and there is another one called LEVEL which has 820 citations on Google Scholar and also has the same quadratic term of Dattani in it.}} Reference 43 says (a) Le Roy RJ. betaFIT 2.1. University of Waterloo Chemical Physics Research Report CP-666; 2013. (b) Le Roy RJ. betaFIT 2.0. CP-665; 2009. (c) Le Roy RJ. phiFIT 1.1. CP-663R; 2006. (d) Le Roy RJ. phiFIT 1.0, CP-663; 2006. See also 〈〉.http://leroy.uwaterloo.ca/programs/ Ref 79 says (a) Le Roy RJ, Seto J, Huang Y. DPotFit 2.0: a computer program for fitting diatomic molecule spectra to potential energy functions. University of Waterloo Chemical Physics Research Report CP-667; 2013. (b) Le Roy RJ, Seto J, Huang Y. DPotFit 1.2. CP-664; 2007. (c) Le Roy RJ, Seto J, Huang Y. DPotFit 1.1. CP-662R; 2006. See also 〈〉.http://leroy.uwaterloo.ca/programs/ LEVEL is another program by Le Roy. I don't see what any of these has to do with Dattani. Researchers implementing the software they developed in subsequent projects is obviously not "widespread use" of that software, nor is acknowledging a coauthor's tweaks to that software in those projects "widespread attribution". The experimentalists in this case are not considered creators of the MLR in any capacity, and I did give evidence beyond the "assertion", by showing you that the software doesn't consider any of the experimentalists creators of any part of it. You showed the source code for a different program by Le Roy utilizes a correction to a portion of the MLR program from Dattani. That says nothing about the original software authors. but you wouldn't accept that the MLR is not attributed to the 4 experimentalists, and when I showed that none of them were mentioned in the software I showed you, you actually said more evidence would be needed and then said you're not convinced the DPF approach is widely used even though no one said anything about the DPF approach in the first place. Again, none of them are mentioned in the source code to a different program that incorporates Dattani's corrections to particular values for particular functions of the MLR potential. They are mentioned as authors in the earlier symposium abstracts, although those both seem to suggest the MLR was actually introduced by Le Roy and Henderson in 2006/7: The analytic potential energy functions used to characterize the (X1 ∑g+) and (A 1 ∑u+) states are extended versions of the `Morse-Long-Range' (MLR) potential model which explicitly incorporates the theoretically-known inverse-power long-range behaviour within a unified potential function form. This is verified by following the source provided in that abstract (Le Roy & Henderson 2007), which contains this sentence:

      The present work presents a new potential energy function model, what we call the ‘Morse/Long-Range’ or MLR function

      So it looks like Dattani isn't even a creator of the MLR function model. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the "MLR function" in that 2007 paper is not the same as in papers after Dattani's 2008 work. I said before, there was an error which Dattani's 2008 work corrected (and was attributed to have corrected it). That correction is implemented in the 2009, 2013, and 2016 versions of the software betaFit, potFit, and LEVEL (at least). LEVEL has 820 citations on Google Scholar and uses the MLR. Please consider that papers often cite a program without citing all the papers that lead to it. The majority of the citations to the MLR were after 2008, and several components of the function are more complicated than in the 2007 paper. What is called MLR in newer papers, is not what was being called "MLR" in the 2007 paper, which had a mathematical error in it. Intriguingly, I cannot even find the 2007 paper to which you refer, in LeRoy's Google Scholar page. Maybe he has taken it off because of that error. Finally: I thought I made it very clear in my last comments that I am feeling badgered and don't think this level of sealioning or demanding excruciating levels of detail is fair, nor is it in the spirit of Wikipedia. You said: "What we need is a substantial amount of published scholarship by independent researchers saying, e.g., "Le Roy and Dattani introduced..."", but it's asking for too much. The criteria are guidelines. Please do not be militant about them. You wouldn't want people doing that to you. Thanks for the discussion up to now. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And PCR isn't the same as when Mullis developed it. I don't see an erratum published for the 2007 paper, nor do I see mention of this correction outside of the source code you provided of a couple subsequent programs by Le Roy. We do not cite raw source code comments on Wikipedia, much less make assertions about who invented a tool based on one editors interpretation of those comments! GS is discouraged by NPROF for citation evaluation for a reason, so the fact that Google failed to index Le Roy's 2007 paper on his GS profile means nothing. If the error was so egregious that he's embarrassed to be associated with that paper, he could have published an erratum. I don't see why he would though, it has the most citations out of any of his MLR papers. The criteria are clear that a (1) significant invention is (2) widely attributed to the subject for it to count towards notability, and you have not demonstrated either of those facets; it's no more bludgeoning to address that issue than it is for you to dispute every delete !vote. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • PCR isn't the same but the MLR in 2021 is the same as it was in the 2-author (Dattani & LeRoy in that order) paper in 2011. The lack of an erratum isn't enough to conclude anything. People don't always publish an erratum. The mention of the correction is not just in the code but also in the 2008 and 2009 conference papers and frankly, I don't expect it to be mentioned elsewhere because the MLR wasn't used by "outside" authors before 2009. What evidence do you have that GS didn't pick up the paper? Is there another paper by LeRoy on Scopus that you don't see on GS? How do you know LeRoy didn't remove the 2007 paper from GS manually? You say GS is discouraged but Scopus is too — Dattani's 5th most cited paper on GS (with 50+ citation, and also the most discussed in the media) probably doesn't show up at all on Scopus. Your badgering is not just about asking for demonstrating those facets, it's the excruciating detail you're asking. The purpose of requiring a scientific contribution to be "widely attributed" to someone is to confirm their role, which can be done even by one person. It probably should say "certainly attributed" rather than "widely attributed". The code clearly shows attribution when it implements a correction described in earlier conference papers. I hope your issue is more about the significance of that attributed contribution than about it being attributed to them. If the correction is a minor "tweak" that only appears in the software as an optional feature which no one uses, maybe it's insignificant no matter who it's attributed to. If it's a major correction which all subsequent MLR papers use, and LeRoy's code literally calls it "Dattani's correction", then it's "certainly attributed" to him and even if other authors just call it "the MLR" when they're using "the MLR with Dattani's correction". It is quite apparent that you want this article (and 18 others in the aforementioned 7-day period) deleted, but if we become overly concerned about the minute details (e.g. demanding evidence of "wide" attribution if it is already in fact "clearly" attributed to the person), I'm scared at the thought of how many other pages would have to be deleted on similar grounds of not following the guideline (not rule book) exactly to every single letter. By the way I had not disputed every delete !vote at the time of your last comment (e.g. I didn't dispute Eppstein's or hroest's) and while you were writing this I had already changed my vote to delete (I started doing that before you wrote the last comments and I only saw them the next day). I was the first to mention TOOSOON and some other things leaning towards. Even if that wasn't true and I did dispute every !vote, meaning that in your words what you're doing is "no more bludgeoning" than me, two wrongs don't make a right, so "it's ok for me to bludgeon because others are doing it" is not right. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • GS lists Le Roy as RJLE Roy in the authors field for the 2007 paper. This extremely common issue with GS is why the paper does not show up under Le Roy's profile, not some absurd baseless allegation of embarrassment. Christ...
        *No, "clearly attributed" is not equivalent to "widely attributed" in the context of the NPROF wording. "Widely" reinforces the requirement for multiple independent, reliable sources demonstrating attribution -- which the PI's raw source code comments and symposium abstracts by the same author are not. Regardless, as I've explained many times now the code shows Le Roy attributed a correction to Dattani; it is pure SYNTH to extend that to the original model, but even if Le Roy explicitly stated Dattani invented the MLR this would still fail the requirement that it be widely attributed to him.
      • You are welcome to go rescue all those microstubs on non-notable cricket players that were near-unanimously deleted if you are so concerned with my AfD participation.
      • Verifiability is a policy, not a guideline.
      • If you don't want me responding to your comments then don't reply to me. I'm not the one complaining about bludgeoning. JoelleJay (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) "don't reply to me" indicates you want to have the last word, which is exactly what the bludgeon guideline recommends not to do. I never said I "don't want you to reply to me" I said I don't want you to badger me by asking for excruciating details about every, single, point in order to establish notability.
  • (2) No one questioned whether or not "verifiability" is a policy vs guideline! I said "widely attributed" is a guideline under notability for academics, and if it's "clearly attributed" it can be enough, for example if the co-author on a paper explicitly states that it was the other one that made a certain contribution, what you said about needing an "exceptional number of citations in academic journals" is unreasonable when verifying the attribution part when the method is already very highly cited.
  • (3) I never said anything about microstubs or non-notable cricket players that were near-unanimously deleted! Why are you getting so off-topic!
  • (4) I never said clearly is "equivalent" to widely, you are putting words in my mouth, constantly! Your use of the words "extremely", "absurd", "baseless", and "Christ" in that paragraph are in my opinion not appropriate for what is supposed to be a civil discussion here. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pinging the participants on the previous AfD. @Canuckle, David Eppstein, and Abductive: you might be interested. Also, would someone with permission look at the previously-deleted version and verify that this is not a WP:G4 situation? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! As it was almost 7 years ago, I don't think I have a copy of the deleted version, but it was deleted in September 2014 which was before he seems to have published anything in quantum computing. So the MLR potential probably would have been the centerpiece of that article! And now that I'm pushed to try to recall, I vaguely remember there being something about computational biology, and it wouldn't have been the above-mentioned paper about the FMO complex since that was also published after the article deletion. Starting from most-cited to least-cited on Google Scholar, I see this paper for which he was last author (meaning principal investigator in biology) and the method introduced in that paper seems to have been used in a highly-cited (100+ citations/year) paper in early 2020 paper that confirmed the origin of COVID to be from bats. I will do some more reading on this and ask some colleagues to learn more about the science, and then report back if I think there could be a 4th C1 argument added to my initial "keep" message here. If I do add a 4th, would it be better to write a separate comment, or to incorporate it into the earlier "keep" message? Unfortunately, this 4th C1 argument is based on a paper published in 2015, which is again after the previous article was deleted, so I will keep investigating to try to see what the biology paper in the first article was. Dr. Universe (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The scholar link seems to link to some citations rather than the original paper/papers. Please provide both links if you want this considered, google scholar can be unreliable at times. If you are simply pointing out that a method was used by a highly cited paper involving COVID, this does not directly relate to the work of Nike Dattani. Also, please maintain a single comment with your arguments to keep, rather than spreading them over the entire page as this is getting confusing and pushing towards WP:BLUDGEON. You have directly replied to every delete in this proposal to attempt to add more information directly, which shouldn't be required if this person is truly notable. TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies. It did not occur to me that Google Scholar works that way. The paper is called "Mapping the space of genomic signatures" and is on Dattani's Google Scholar page. The link I provided was meant to be the Google Scholar page for that article. Dattani is clearly the last author on the paper so it does directly relate if the method was used in early 2020 to connect the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to bats. I am also mindful of the risk of bludgeoning. It's not unusual for the author of a Wikipedia article to get concerned about their work being deleted, and to participate eagerly in a deletion discussion, but I am trying to take a step back where I can. I note you mentioned here here that this is your first experience on Wikipedia, which also matches with your revision history (please accept my belated welcome to you by the way!) but responses to some later comments are not typically incorporated into a much earlier "keep" message with an older time stamp. You said I replied to comments to attempt to add more information", but only I can know my intention and I would encourage you to assume good faith. Let's keep accusations to a minimum, especially because I don't want to bluegeon, but also have to respond to comments. Thanks for your understanding! Dr. Universe (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dr. Universe, while it's true many biology papers list the senior author last, this is a computational biology/CS paper and he is just an outside collaborator, definitely not the PI. The senior author would be the corresponding (and first) author Lila Kari, and the author contributions actually indicate he had the least involvement (which is why he is last author). JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • (1) You say the "senior author would be the corresponding (and first) author Lila Kari". Then why is it that in the next paper Lila Kari is last and it's the graduate student that is first author and corresponding author?
(2) You say "the author contributions actually indicate he had the least involvement", but they actually indicate the contrary: "Analyzed the data: NB KAH NSD. Designed the software: NB NSD RK ASS." So NB and NSD were the only ones that were involved in both analyzing the data and in designing the software. And yet, you say he had the "least' involvement? Surely RK who only helped in software design and KAH who only helped in analyzing the data, contributed less? NB and NSD appear in the largest number of author contributions sections. Then when we look at the referenced software it points to a GitHub page for which Dattani is the only contributor.
(3) All this discussion is only for a 4th angle at C1 anyway. Dr. Universe (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kari and Hill were clearly the only PIs on this paper since all of the WO authors were in their labs, with the majority being in Kari's. Dattani is the only author not at Western Ontario, he did not have a senior researcher position at the time of the paper's publication (or now?), and most importantly his funding is from his undergrad and graduate years so no he is obviously not the senior author. The full contributions list is Analyzed the data: NB KAH NSD. Wrote the paper: LK. Designed the software: NB NSD RK ASS. In-Depth analysis: LK KAH ASS RK NB KD NSD. Having a hand in all the contributions sections does not reveal the weight of his contributions (although his positions in them suggest he was the least involved in analysis) or the overall weight of a particular section. The authorship order and structure of the paper strongly suggest working on the software design was not nearly as important as the analysis; it's not the details of the code that are novel but rather the underlying theory and implementation of it. Software engineers are not the ones coming up with the experimental, computational, or analysis specs. JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he did not have a senior researcher position at the time of the paper's publication" <= Based on what are you saying this? You must know them I guess? And why does it matter? In the above comment, you pointed out that Dattani was a "junior" author on the MLR paper and that the other 5 are very senior, but in the end the MLR model is in fact attributed to that lone junior author and the person you say was his PI named a component of the MLR after him as the "Dattani correction" in a software published 7 years later. Furthermore I encourage you to look at the above-mentioned 2-author quantum computing paper from 2014: Considering that Nathaniel Bryans (the NB in this biology paper) was a member of Kari's lab (as you pointed out) and Dattani was done his PhD in 2009 according to Russ Woodroofe's above comment, would you say that Dattani was the senior author and PI who lead the project while NB was the "junior" author? I see not a single other paper by NB on quantum computing but plenty by Dattani. Furthermore I encourage you to look at the above-mentioned 2-author FMO paper from 2015. The publication history of the co-author Wilkins on Google Scholar begins with 2 papers in 2012 with Dattani and Pollock, and this was also Pollock's first paper, indicating Dattani supervised or at least mentored them both for their first publication. Would you agree that Dattani was the "senior" author or PI who lead the 2014 paper with NB and 2015 paper with Wilkins? The biology paper is also from 2015. Are you sure that he did not have a senior researcher position in 2015, and if so, why does it matter if 2/4 of the possible C1 papers were done with him as the supervisor or mentor of a more junior researcher? Dr. Universe (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are continuing to misunderstand what a senior researcher/PI is in the context of paper authorship. He did not have a senior academic researcher position when he did the work for that comp-bio paper because his funding was from undergrad and grad grants and undergrad and grad students are never senior researchers. When we are talking about senior authors/PIs on papers we are not talking about post-docs or adjunct or non-TT assistant professors (in most fields), we are talking about tenured/TT professors (/non-US equivalents) in academic institutions and research directors (etc.) outside of academia. And in certain fields being "the most senior" of the authors on a paper does not indicate you are a supervisor directing research. What evidence do you have that Dattani runs his own lab/group or is tenure-track? JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first time you said "he did not have a senior researcher position at the time of the paper's publication" and when I asked what that was based on (and pointed out many things pointing towards him being quite senior in 2015), you changed it to "He did not have a senior academic researcher position when he did the work for that comp-bio paper" and accused me of misunderstanding very basic academic terminology and started to do the written equivalent of yelling or raising your voice by switching to bold font, to argue the changed version of your point, and you still didn't answer the question about why it matters whether or not the author held a senior researcher position at the time. You seem to be extremely dedicated to arguing a lack of C1 for (only) 2 out of the 4 papers that have been mentioned in the context of C1, and in just 7 days you have !voted to delete 18 articles about academics and to keep zero (0) of them. I have never seen someone put so much emphasis on the difference between "post-docs or adjunct or non-TT assistant professors" vs "tenured/TT professors" (and you used Roman font for "professors" in the first category and Italic font for "professors" in the second category, I'm not sure I can any longer stomach the apparent snobbery around academic titles in a discussion about C1, not C5). You say "in certain fields being "the most senior" of the authors on a paper does not indicate you are a supervisor directing research" without specifying whether or not the subject of this discussion is in one of those fields, and in that sentence you have completely ignored the part about Wilkins and Pollock having had 0 publications before the 2012 one with Dattani, and similar for Bryans in the 2014 paper, and similar for several other junior authors who you can see published their first paper with Dattani being either the first or last author: If you kept the detail about this being the first paper for the co-authors, and the fact that the senior-most author had already been publishing for years, you would unlikely be downplaying the role of the senior author so much in that sentence. When we are talking about eligibility to pass C1, the question you're asking about whether or not the person is on a tenure-track journey is totally outside of our scope. Academic ranks come in to play for C5, but no one is talking about C5 here. This fixation on "rankings" and tenure-track vs adjunct etc. is not something I would like to participate in (maybe others are ok with it) for a discussion about C1 eligibility. Your dedication to arguing for deletion also suggests I should throw in the towel at least on my side. It may be a case of WP:TOO SOON or too much COI here. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr. Universe, yep, definitely TOOSOON and COI. But to respond to your comments:
      The first time you said "he did not have a senior researcher position at the time of the paper's publication" and when I asked what that was based on (and pointed out many things pointing towards him being quite senior in 2015), you changed it to "He did not have a senior academic researcher position when he did the work for that comp-bio paper". You were arguing he was the senior author on that compbio paper. I responded that he definitely was not, as evidenced by his funding for that paper being undergrad and grad grants, and by the authors including the actual professor leading the research group. I initially only noticed the latter fact, which was more than enough to support his not being the senior author at the time of publication. Later I saw what his funding was and so added that he was also not senior whenever he made those contributions, which would have to have been much earlier than 2015. you still didn't answer the question about why it matters whether or not the author held a senior researcher position at the time. You introduced the relevance of being senior author when you mentioned this paper for which he was last author (meaning principal investigator in biology) as a potential 4th C1 argument. It is relevant to whether we can attribute significant results to someone -- being the PI is a much stronger position than first author -- although in this case the paper so clearly fails C1 that it didn't matter. You seem to be extremely dedicated to arguing a lack of C1 for (only) 2 out of the 4 papers that have been mentioned in the context of C1, and in just 7 days you have !voted to delete 18 articles about academics and to keep zero (0) of them. I don't know how this is relevant or where you're getting these numbers but in the last 2 weeks I have !voted in 6 academic AfDs one of which I !voted speedy keep. And in a 7th I commented what will be assessed as a keep !vote. My !vote was in line with consensus in the 4 that have been closed. I have never seen someone put so much emphasis on the difference between "post-docs or adjunct or non-TT assistant professors" vs "tenured/TT professors" (and you used Roman font for "professors" in the first category and Italic font for "professors" in the second category, I'm not sure I can any longer stomach the apparent snobbery around academic titles in a discussion about C1, not C5). The distinction is critical in determining the weight we give a particular paper being considered for either C1 citations or C1 "significant discovery". And ok, I should have italicized "tenured/TT" as well as "professors" to be consistent with my internal emphasis style. You say "in certain fields being "the most senior" of the authors on a paper does not indicate you are a supervisor directing research" without specifying whether or not the subject of this discussion is in one of those fields, and in that sentence you have completely ignored the part about Wilkins and Pollock having had 0 publications before the 2012 one with Dattani [...] If you kept the detail about this being the first paper for the co-authors, and the fact that the senior-most author had already been publishing for years, you would unlikely be downplaying the role of the senior author so much in that sentence. The relevance of being the PI/group leader/thesis adviser is the same as I explained above, and since there is zero evidence he is in those roles it's clear he does publish sometimes in such fields. Math grad students regularly publish alone or with an undergrad in their group without their adviser; inasmuch as author seniority is even considered in these fields, their being the senior-most author obviously doesn't imply they hold a position of the same importance that, say, last-author of a bio paper holds. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not judge the importance of someone's contributions based on their title at an institution or how senior they are. You seem convinced that Kari and Hill were PIs. According to author contributions, neither of them were involved in the implementation and Kari was not involved in the analysis. Dattani was involved in both and 100% of the commits on GitHub. You keep mentioning that his funding was from undergrad scholarships, and I'm not sure how you know this but I take your word for it. However you said he was a grad student in 2008. His undergrad would likely have been before that. If it was in 2004, then there's 11 years between the undergrad funding and the paper's publication. One Google Scholar we see several previous versions on arXiv with Kari, Hill and Dattani but not some of the other authors (at least 3 of them are missing from those). Earlier you said Dattani's contribution was the "least important", but this evidence refutes that. Maybe he had an undergrad scholarship in 2004 when he first started working on the project, but then worked on the rest of it in his free time during his post-PhD years: the point is just because there's an acknowledgement for some undergrad funding program, does not mean that when the paper was published 11 years later, he did not contribute significantly. Your arguments would sound a lot more convincing if you once and for all stopped making assumptions about people's ranks and titles and how they are related to the worth of someone's contributions. The only thing we can see is that 100% of the commits on GitHub were from Dattani, and those were in years after the PhD, so it's not like he worked as an undergrad then did nothing for 11 years. The commits on GitHub show that work was done after his PhD, and the lack of a listed funding source for the commits he pushed to GitHub after his PhD, means nothing. Maybe he didn't have funding to specifically continue this work, but the evidence shows that he did continue working on it. I have some COIs here: I wrote the article a long time ago and spent time and effort on it, I'm a fan of LeRoy and the people he touched (I wrote articles about Donald James LeRoy and Jiri Cizek too, but they were speedy deleted due mainly to lack of experience at the time), I do not like the type of academic elitism where you assume that the "PI" did all the work and you discriminate gentleman scientists who are unfunded or don't hold conventional positions at universities. You have some COIs too, as you've invested a lot into trying to take this article down and you seem relentless in your effort to ensure that investment wasn't wasted, and your comments in other deletion discussions indicate you want to sustain delete decisions that are on the stricter end when evaluating academic notability, and share Eppstein's view in the notability talk page, that there's a lot of very high-citation scientists with 10,000+ citations who don't yet have articles, and not much favor for leniency for far younger scientists who cause the balance to be peculiar. Thanks for your considerations here. I'd be happy if we can both move onto other work. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my contrib history it should be obvious I wasn't aware of Dattani or anyone affiliated with him before I saw this AfD, so the COI allegation is completely unfounded. I have exactly the same info you have on him (actually probably far less). Kari and Hill are/were professors, with Kari supervising PhD students since at least 2003 (including one of the coauthors) and Hill since at least 2013 (including another of the coauthors (see starred names)). Dattani's funding for the 2015 paper is listed on the same page as the paper text that you linked. GitHub commits are not RS and they do not reflect an author's importance to a project, especially one where the novelty and results center around the bio-computational theory behind the software rather than the implementation of the code. Demanding RS to support assertions of academic notability isn't elitism; if someone makes truly important scholarly contributions then they will have the citation record, awards, or professional position to achieve NPROF or the sustained SIGCOV needed for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your COI is based on things like the effort you've invested into getting the article deleted, and the fact that you !voted to delete 18 out of 18 of the articles you !voted on in a 7-day period. You're now determined to "win" and have nitpicked every response to your arguments. As the article creator I also have a COI, and the 22 accounts/IPs currently being investigated probably also had a COI (one of them had an IP address from "Lila's macbook pro" at Lila Kari's university and all they did was remove her name from the article). About Github — GitHub is a clear way to see who did what. Your assumptions about where the novelty lies is what you have called SYNTH. About RS — You're not just demanding RS, you are demanding it in excruciating detail. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting the slight effort of looking up the authors of a paper and paying attention to their funding is not COI. Attempting to disabuse editors of, at best, [WP:CIR|substantial WP policy misunderstandings] is not COI. Rejecting GitHub commits as non-RS SYNTH is not COI. Creating articles on people you know personally and name-bombing them in numerous other articles IS COI. JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • COI was declared by me multiple times since I was the article's creator, but you are failing to acknowledge your several COIs which I can name in far more detail if you continue to deny them. Those three things you said are not COI, are not what anyone said was COI. Also, it was User:A.S. Brown that claimed to know the subject personally, not me. And A.S. Brown has not made any substantial edits to the article, nor to this discussion. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion was closed 17 minutes after you wrote that, and I didn't think I was allowed to write further here until I saw that AS Brown did. With this discussion closed already, let me choose not to respond further. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the previous article: both articles make the claim of involvement in inventing MLR potential. It is possible that authors of the 2014 article pulled this Dattani's work into that article. It is possible that it's an innocent name collision. There is one detail that is different between the two that would make it highly unlikely, but not impossible, for the two articles to be written about the two: the subject of the article deleted in 2014 was identified as female. Setting that aside, there are enough changes that G4 does not apply. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @C.Fred: Dr. Universe seems to have knowledge of it, seems to know what would have been on it, and has edit history for it. The name also matches identically to another name he/she has gone by. It is hard to believe these would be totally different pages, the pronoun usage may have either changed or been a mistake at the time. See this article. Can you confirm what topics show up on the page broadly speaking? Clicked edit after your change, I see you changed it along with my original observation. TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • For this article I used the name "Nike Dattani" which is what is on Google Scholar and his recent publications. As the original article was 7 years ago, it's possible that they changed their gender and name. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A lot closer to academic notability than the previous round, several years ago, but with only three papers with triple-digit citation counts, all with many coauthors (and Dattani not first) in high-citation topics, I'm still not convinced. The COI editing problems push me from weak delete to full delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback @David Eppstein:! It may indeed be another case of WP:TOO SOON and a case of too much COI. If I may ask a question: your comment suggests that without COI editing problems, you'd recommend delete or weak delete if an academic has only 3 papers with 100+ citations in these fields especially if they aren't first author. At what number of papers (let's assume again that he's not first-author on any of them, but second-author on most of them as in this case) would your recommendation be keep? Some minor points about these papers being in high-citation topics (no need to reply since 3 non-first-author papers with 100+ citations isn't so much anyway):
(1) I would largely ignore the highest-cited paper anyway because it's a paper about a highly-used open-source software with 50+ co-authors, and each person that uses the software will cite the paper. Being a co-author still counts for something, but the number of citations needs to be damped by the number of co-authors.
(2) The other two papers might be on higher-citation topics than some topics in pure math but far lower-citation than most topics in medicine, biology, chemistry, pharmacology etc. Probably 0.00001% of the world population (about 780 people, that even sounds a bit generous!) has ever heard of a "quantum master equation" before let alone the number of people that care about this specific paper, and looking at the 3rd paper with 100+ citations (published in 2009), the first-author LeRoy was publishing since 52 years ago and has only 1 other paper that has got as many citations/year (if we ignore "HITRAN database: 2012 edition" and "LEVEL: A computer program for..." since databases and software are cited a lot). I'd say the 2nd paper is on a low-to-medium-citation topic and the 3rd one is just a highly-cited paper on a very low-citation topic due to introducing the MLR model which was then used by many others.
(3) Neither points (1) nor (2) are meant to change anything about your general recommendation to delete. Indeed 3 papers with 100+ citations isn't so much, and the 1st one has 50+ authors: I was just making the minor point about the 2nd and 3rd papers not quite being in areas where it's easy to get 100 citations. Dr. Universe (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that David (the delete !voter here) created the Eleanor Rieffel article on 19 November 2018 when the subject had only 3 entries with 100+ GS citations, and 2 of those were not original research articles (just secondary review works that carry less weight). Rieffel and Dattani work in the same subfield of quantum computing, and the same sub-subfield of adiabatic quantum computing and Rieffel seems to be the one presenting Dattani as a speaker in a conference, meaning same sub-sub-subfield (within Adiabatic Quantum Computing) so we can't say this disparity was due to one author working in a more "high-citation topic" than the other. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment - FYI - A sockpuppet investigation has been opened regarding select participants in this AfD. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Missvain:. Here's some more IPs or SPAs that might benefit from investigation:
- This account User:Taka_tanimura of a Kyoto University professor, along with several SPAs with Kyoto University IP addresses (130.54.130.233, 130.54.130.244, 130.54.50.111, 130.192.155.249, 130.192.155.248 and repeatedly tried changing "Kyoto University" to "Kyoto Women's University" or removing it altogether, from Dattani's page, but articles such as the 2014 one by Phys.org and multiple 2015 papers said that Dattani worked at Kyoto University).
- This account User:BountyTJ has entered into similar edit wars, trying to remove cited references about Dattani: The user has edited articles about research institutes in the Netherlands, and similar edits or edit wars happened from this Netherland's IP address: 217.101.236.202, this Dutch name User:Agdijkstra, and reverts that were similar to BountyTJ and at similar times were from: User:FidelCastrum, User:Mrs. Norma Smith, User:Friendly Colleague, User:Lellowiki. See this talk page for: talk:Hierarchical_equations_of_motion.
- User:TheLawGiverOfDFT, User:Dft4wiki, 147.226.103.110 (SPAs created at around the same time, all doing similar edits attempting to get this article deleted).
- 23.233.1.239 removed mention of Dattani being a co-author with Lila Kari and all other edits were on Kari's article, but the IP address points to "Lila's macbook pro" at Kari's university.
- 24.134.125.217 (2 edits, both removing references to Dattani), Special:Contributions/192.225.188.2, 213.205.194.52
- User:NikeDattani (SPA that's already banned, but probably not actually Nike Dattani because all they did was make edits that would be unfavorable to Dattani in for example Hierarchical_equations_of_motion). This user created the illusion that Dattani was making edits on his own page.
- User:Gaurarjun account blocked indefinitely, wrote scathing edit summaries on Dattani page. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- More, but this is what I could come up with this hour.
signed: Dr. Universe (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dr. Universe. Please add them to the sockpuppet investigation with your proof. I merely reported and requested the investigation, I am not doing it myself. You can find it here. Missvain (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Missvain: Thank you. I wonder, how did this possible sockpuppet situation reach your attention? Another admin was in this AfD discussion and interacted with those user accounts, but it was you that opened the investigation. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete C1: while Dr. Dattani clearly contributed to the MLR method this was done as undergraduate work and likely the supervisor had a leading hand in that. The FMO paper seems marginal given that typical corner stone papers in that field have far beyond 1000 citations. While he has more than 1000 citations on his google scholar page this is not really what I would consider notable in the fields where he is involved. He also do not seem to have a current affiliation, which I am convinced he would if he would really be that important. I do not want to say that he is not a good scientist, I just do not think that he is someone that is of broad general interest. C2: 175 Guggenheim Fellowships are awarded every year, I did not find Dr. Dattani on the list of Linguapax Prize winners. The Banting Fellowship does not appear to be noticeable enough to be mentioned on wikipedia. He is not listed among the recipients of the Banting Award as otherwise listed on this wikipedia page. Dr. Universe added Dr. Dattani as recipient on the Clarendon Fund on that wikipedia page. While receiving such prizes certainly says something about the skills of the recipient I do not think these prices award notability in the broad public. BountyTJ (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good that you're here BountyTJ. Are you able to clear up anything about the 6 SPA accounts I mentioned above regarding the sockpuppet (or in this case meatpuppet) investigation? It is not true that you can't find his name on the Banting Fellowship website. It's there. I never said he got the Linguapax prize. Can you give examples of the papers in that field that have far beyond 1000 citations? Dr. Universe (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Sorry, I cannot help you on these accounts as I do not have any knowledge of them, except this one which was mentioned in the list. 2. I understand that Dr. Dattani DID get the Banting FELLOWSHIP, but the article links to the Banting AWARD, which he did not get according to the wikipedia page on the Banting AWARD. 3. Thanks for clarifying that he did not get the Linguapax prize, I misunderstood your original post that mentioned that prize, but indeed did not claim that he received it. (This whole discussion is getting very long and an increasing amount of irrelevant information is accumulated.) I removed the prize from my argument above. 4. A few examples of relevant papers in the range of or beyond 1000 citations on "quantum biology" include: Nature 446 (7137), 782-786 (>3000 citations), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (29), 12766-12770 (>1000 citations), The Journal of Chemical Physics 129 (17), 11B603 (>1100 citations), New Journal of Physics 10 (11), 113019 (>1000 citations), Nature Physics 6 (6), 462-467 (>700 citations). 5. I do not see any reason to discuss here if other pages that you initiated should potentially be removed or not or if a page to prominently cited scientists as for example Gregory Engel should be added. I think that should be discussed on those other respective pages. BountyTJ (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying the errors with the Linguapax prize and Banting award vs fellowship. About the accounts, you publicly accused Dr. Universe of being "Dattani's secretary, Mrs Norma Smith" and then at exactly around that time in September 2009 the account User:Mrs. Norma Smith was created only to do nothing but remove lots of information about Dattani's contributions. The other accounts were created at the same time and did the same things. One of these accounts (now banned) had username NikeDattani, and it's conceivable that whoever had the audacity to create an account with the name of Dattani's secretary, would also be one of the rare people with the audacity to create an account fradulently using Nike Dattani's name. Thanks for pointing out those papers with 1000+ citations — they are all discussing quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes (one of them even went as far as to say that the FMO is a quantum computer carrying out Grover's search algorithm and that is totally incorrect), which is what Dattani's paper is saying is "not important" for the efficiency of the FMO complex because the coherent HEOM calculation and the incoherent Foerster calculation are getting the exciton to the reaction center at the same time (the only difference is that HEOM gives oscillations and Foerster does not). So your use of citation counts to assess the importance of the paper is a red herring. His paper is telling people not to keep working on that topic, and indeed citation counts in that field are gradually going down and you cannot expect his paper to get 1000+ citations if people indeed stop working on the topic. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I was also going to say that those would have to be taken care of once the article is deleted. I have admitted to having a COI as the article creator but the COI on this article is more complicated than that — 22 different accounts/IPs were mentioned above in the section about SP investigation. Thanks again for all your input! You're been helpful. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I told you not to badger someone on one AfD, and it was only that 8-word sentence, and it was before I knew what WP:HOUNDING was, yet you said "AfDs" in plural which is deceiving. On your talk page, I tried to give you a friendly notice to update the part that says "This user is pursuing a PhD" since the bottom listed you under "Wikipedians that have a PhD" and I figured you graduated but forgot to update it. As a follow-up I tried to call a truce with you by suggesting we should let this page get deleted (which is what you argued so long for). Dr. Universe (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoelleJay, I too am seeing a pattern WP:SEALIONing behavior here. I'm impressed at your efforts to explain academic notability rules, but I suggest that engaging further here is not going to be productive. Pinging @Missvain: as an administrator not involved in any dispute, but who is already aware of the situation here, in case further action is warranted. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:51, 27 May 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 09:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contic Cruises[edit]

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

Among the cited sources: the company, co-founder Yves Marre, and Friendship (an NGO co-founded by Yves Marre) are not independent. What's left are two links, both now dead. Were they significant coverage of the company? They were used to support only two sentences, suggesting that they were not. Searches of the usual types found one more sentence in a profile of the other co-founder,[47] and a story with five sentences of rather promotional content.[48] Does not meet WP:NCORP. In principle could be merged/redirected to Yves Marre or Runa Khan, the co-founders, although it isn't clear which, and there isn't much to say that isn't said already in the former. Worldbruce (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:28, 20 May 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 keep. As per WP:NAUTHOR (1, 3) as well as WP:NACADEMIC (1, 2) and other reasons listed below. (non-admin closure) LearnIndology (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Truschke[edit]

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

The subject is notable only for a single event. She received media attention for some time due to her abusive comments.Delete as per WP:BIO1E LearnIndology (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR (1, 3) as well as WP:NACADEMIC (1, 2). Her work have been reviewed by multiple scholars in quite-exceptional terms, she is well-cited and she had won one of the most prestigious prizes in the domain of South Asian History. These are already mentioned in the article but the nomination chose to ignore them. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while passing NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC is far from obvious (scholar profile) she easily passes WP:GNG. This isn't a single event, as she has been covered recently in 2021: [49][50][51], as well as in 2018: [52][53][54], 2017: [55]. Coverage is significant and sustained.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any social-science scholar having their works reviewed by some 10-15 scholars over multiple journals obviously passes NACADEMIC. This is not hard-sciences, where h-index etc. plays a significant role. 134 citations of a 2016 book is huge.
  • It might be also worthy to mention that IndiaFacts as well as Goa Chronicle are unreliable sources. I do not want people intending to use those as sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I picked those out of a Google news search, I admit to be unfamiliar with Goa Chronicle. However what is evident in a search is that Truschke's views and opinions on those views are extensively covered by the media, including blue chip sources such as The Hindu. Just The Hindu, for instance, covered Truschke and her work not only in 2021, but also in 2015, [56], 2017, 2018, [57]. It appears other reliable media is similar, which easily demonstrates GNG.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 20 May 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. (non-admin closure) — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rom (Star Trek)[edit]

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

No idea how this one survived so long - not only it has no reception section or such, but it is totally unreferenced, pure WP:FANCRUFT. Nothing here seems sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, just some plot summaries and mentions in passing, the best is likely this CBR clickbait list of 10 blah blahs: [58]. I hoped there'd be something scholarly about characters with disability or such, but no such luck, he still hasn't attracted any serious attention outside fandom, as far as I can tell. The old AFD 10 years ago was dominated by fans voting "keep, all Star Trek recurring characters are notable". No, they are not. At best, redirect to List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters (or List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(N–S)#R). PS. It would be good to improve Quark_(Star_Trek)#Reception and Nog_(Star_Trek)#Reception before they end up here, neither of which currently looks particularly impressive (if I were to guess, Quark is probably notable, I have serious doubts Nog is...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters - Outside of an interview with the actor that portrayed him and entries on the usual "top ten" style pop culture lists, there is not a whole lot on Rom in reliable sources that goes beyond brief mentions. Most of the bits of coverage on him are merely in the context of describing how he is related to his more notable family members, or commentary on Ferengi as a whole where he is mentioned as being an example of one. The only in-depth coverage on Rom, specifically, I can find are all in articles at startrek.com, which would not be able to be counted as secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per the coverage available in independent, reliable sources.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Graeme McMillan (11 December 2013). "10 Reasons to Love Rom, the Greatest Star Trek Character Ever". Wired. Retrieved 20 May 2021.
  2. ^ Anthony Pascale (24 May 2018). "Interview: Max Grodénchik On Growing As A Ferengi And Bringing Rom To 'Star Trek Online: Victory Is Life'". trekmovie.com. Retrieved 20 May 2021.
  3. ^ Terry J. Erdmann (2008). Star Trek 101: A Practical Guide to Who, What, Where, and Why. Pocket Books. p. 117. ISBN 9781439117873.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SailingInABathTub, Nice find with the Wired piece, it is usually a quality source, although this one is weirdly formatted. But when we string this together, we do get 10 paragraphs. Although it does scare me to think Wired (used to?) run those clickbait-ish 10 blah blah pieces too. The WP:INTERVIEW is more about the actor than the character, so it's rather weak as for establishing the notability. As for the book, I am sorry, but it's a short paragraph with no analysis (direct page link) and just a plot summary, so I don't think it is of any help. Still, the Wired source is a good start. Maybe we can salvage this after all. Ping User:Daranios. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit of characterization. Another interesting source is Trekonomics, which is unfortunately difficult to navigate. It has some characterization of Rom, how we suffers in Ferengi culture as described by Nog just before the sub-chapter "The Meaning of Work", and how he overcomes that and how he is pivotal in "the Ferengis' narative arc" in the last two pages of chapter 8. I will look some more and write out my opinion another day. Daranios (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Daranios, I saw something similar in [59] but I concluded it is a plot summary. In case you haven't seen it, take a look in case you think it is usable here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: That source seems to go a long way towards establishing notability for Nog. But seeing that Rom is included in the conclusion (against which I personally would have a number of things to say), that source should provide a short but interesting counterpoint to the positive reception of the character in the other sources. Daranios (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Piotrus, IMHO that sentence based on Sutko you've removed said something about Rom's (un)suitability for Grand Nagus. But fine, it's good to be double-checked. But what do you think then what Sutko referred to with "which is perhaps why the lovable buffoon Rom becomes the new Grand Negus"? Thanks for input! (Sorry, if this is the wrong place, but here we are already discussing how much there is in secondary sources.) Daranios (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daranios, I think it's fine to quote how he is described, but the tiny plotline is otherwise of no use for the reception. Could use it as a source for the fictional biography, but that's not really a major issue.
    Anyway, thanks for doing what you can. I am afraid I find this one less convincing than Mortok, but let's see what happens. If the end result is delete, I certainly hope it will be soft, and the content you added would be preserved and merged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:Wired rule (yes, I wrote it), and with the other few references here. It's not a great tragedy if the content is merged to either proposed location, but I would suggest that the sources found here be used to improve the main Ferengi article as well. Quark, Nog, and to a lesser extent Rom comprise the substantial Ferengi in the DS9 universe, which as a whole topic clearly has sufficient RS coverage. If the individual character articles aren't individually maintained, I might argue that merging each of them to Ferengi and maintaining but retargeting the character list entries might be more encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect somewhere deemed suitable. Between the article and sources brought forth here, they're insufficient for meeting WP:GNG at this time. TTN (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Between the Wired article and the other sources presented so far, I think there is enough for a reception section, as well as plot summary (which can be supplemented by The Star Trek Encyclopedia) to write a decent-sized stand-alone article, so in my view WP:GNG is fulfilled. Daranios (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More secondary sources have been added to the article, showing that Wikipedia's requirements for noteablity can be fulfilled. Daranios (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daranios, While I have concerns about stretching SIGCOV, and I am AGFing German sources, the article undeniably looks much better than it used in the past. Judging by the votes here, it will likely be kept, and at we certainly don't need to ashamed of it now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a lot sources out there, and the various book and media articles make this reasonable keeper.Star Spotter (Talk) 21:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all other keeps here. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Screen Test[edit]

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

Article about a community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) show, not citing any reliable sources to pass WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows are not handed a free notability pass just because they existed -- the notability test requires them to be the subject of coverage in media in order to establish their significance. But the only "source" here is the IMDb profile of one contestant, which is not a notability-building source, and I can't find any other sources of value. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 20 May 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 Deryck Whibley. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deryck Whibley Telecaster deluxe[edit]

Deryck Whibley Telecaster deluxe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I would've proposed a merge to Deryck Whibley, but there are no sources here so no sourced content to merge. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Deryck Whibley. I was unable to find any decent coverage about the subject to merit its own Wikipedia article. Missvain (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talbot Frederick Rothwell[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC, created by a WP:COI account that cites his own book as the only source. Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage outside of the one book cited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found obituaries on Newspapers.com but they are mere passing mentions. Nothing else came up in my research. Delete per failing GNG and also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Missvain (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bowman, West Virginia[edit]

Bowman, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing here is problematic. GNIS can be safely ignored, and Hamill Kenny's source is contradictory here. It calls it a hamlet, but then states A Mr. Bowman once owned a farm at this point, and that the people thereabouts still occasionally call it Bowman. But strictly speaking [...] there is no such place cited to a member of the local historical society. Topos show two buildings along the railroad tracks.

Searching brings up a lot of noise, especially references to the Bowmans of Brooke County, but I'm not seeing much to suggest this was a notable community, and I'm inclined to put more weight in Kenny's longer description calling this Mr. Bowman's farm. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was definitely a farm. A 1907 report states the Carter Oil Company to have drilled for oil there, alongside other companies in neighbouring farms (Carmichael, Underwood). This matches "oil well" on the topographic maps. Bowman No 1 is not a notable oil well. Nor was it a notable farm, that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grimsley, George Perry (1907). Ohio, Brooke and Hancock Counties. County reports and maps. Vol. 1. Wheeling News Litho. Company. p. 258.
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 09:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An Inconvenient Truth 2[edit]

An Inconvenient Truth 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was the original author of this page way back around 2012. Looking at the page today, it really doesn’t serve a useful purpose: the tv series an inconvenient truth 2 was a one off broadcast and is no longer available to watch anywhere; the sources linked to. E.g news articles are almost all broken links now.

— 82.32.45.57, Special:Diff/1022775501

Hi, can you see my message on the inconvenient truth 2 edit history, please? I’d be grateful if you could schedule the whole page for speedy deletion

— 82.32.45.57, Special:Diff/1022777028
Kleinpecan (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kleinpecan (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As there was a previous AfD discussion, I can't apply a db-author tag and call it a day, but delete per original editor's request. Nate • (chatter) 01:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don’t think this will generate any discussion as it’s a very old article; could we go ahead with delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.45.57 (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Oldwillowbombadil (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. A 3 x 22min episodes series that aired on a very minor TV channel and generated little notice in mainstream media. Amazon is not a suitable source, SoGlos is a dead link to a local paper, Kristianstadsbladet.se is a dead link to a Swedish regional paper, the Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard is a local paper, Talk York is a dead link to unknown media, TimeOut perhaps but that’s a dead link too, The Yorker is a student magazine produced by students at the University of York. I can’t find any evidence that there is any long lasting interest in the series. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all others that participated so far. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:50, 27 May 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, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Process of embodiment (physical theatre)[edit]

Process of embodiment (physical theatre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like WP:SYNTH. EpicPupper (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete References to this I find inevitably in discussing Stanislavski's system, but considering that Merleau-Ponty was only thirty when Stanislavski died, it's hard to see how he could have been an influence. Moreover, the thing reads like a college paper. The phrase is there, in the literature, but I can't find much of a discussion of it, still less even an explanation. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in between these two options:weak delete or merge. There are some results at gscholar, but I am not sure if they are enough to develop a WP article. They seem to be brief mentions and not papers discussing the process of embodiment. Maybe merge it with another article (but which?) Cinadon36 18:42, 20 May 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. After much-extended time for discussion, a consensus for deletion has emerged. BD2412 T 01:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toranjestan Soroush[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion previously, and the argument to keep was that the corresponding article on Persian Wikipedia had sources potentially indicating notability, and that the English article could be expanded from that. However since then, the article on Persian Wikipedia has been deleted for lack of notability (link to discussion). the wub "?!" 09:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That Afd was a clear mistake of the admin. 4 of 5 users participating believed that it should be kept. The coverage by media is evident. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep - A review of the sources:
  • An interview by the Young Journalists Club. Not independent.
  • An account of an opening ceremony of another shop by the publishers who own the shop that is the subject of this article. The content regarding the Toranjestan Soroush appears to be entirely sourced to the CEO of the publiushing company. Not independent.
  • A Janaonline.ir news story about the closing of the shop. I think this qualifies as independent WP:SIGCOV
  • A fars.ir news story that is not accessible for me at the present time.
I can't access that last piece but assuming it is another news story similar to the Javanonline.ir story this is just about a keep for WP:ORG as these are multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV from national-level news organisations. Worth noting that the Persian wiki close was a merge to another article (Soroush Publications) that we do not have a corresponding version of. FOARP (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 12:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There need to be more clarity over how this exactly passes GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the analysis of sources above, none meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to allow for further analysis of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to the request for a further analysis of sources. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics and GNG. In short, 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. My analysis of the available references (only 3 of the 4 are available):
    • This from Young Journalist Club reports to say that Hojjaloleslam Seyed Ibrahim Raisi visited the bookstore in an unofficial visit on the eve of Book Week and spoke with the booksellers. It reports that the store manager explained and answered questions. The article provides no information on the company itself and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
    • This from jjo.ir reports on the opening ceremony of an entirely different bookstore and contains quotes from the owner of this company. There is no in-depth information on this company, failing CORPDEPTH, and the small bits of information that have been provided are sourced to the CEO, failing WP:ORGIND
    • This from Javanonline.ir is a news story about the bookstore where it had been announced the previous week that the store was to close but that the problems were resolved and it was not going to close. It contains a quote from the store manager. It contains almost no information about the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and whatever information is available is sourced from the manager, failing WP:ORGIND.
I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. "Coverage" by media and "mentions" are not criteria for keeping. HighKing++ 17:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The coverage is week, but is there. I'd generally vote delete but maybe we should consider WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. That said, this is just a single bookstore that seems to have gotten a piece about being opened and maybe being closed in local media... rather on the wrong side of GNG I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article says "It is known as one of the most successful models of bookselling in Iran" with 4 references all in Persian script. The analysis above says that 2 references were not independent and one was not possible to open. That leaves us with one reference left, which is not enough to convince me that this is "one of the most successful models of bookselling in Iran". The bookstore was only founded in 2012, and according to User:Piotrus it may even be closed? Dr. Universe (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr. Universe, One of the refs I translated talked about the store facing the possibility of being closed due to bad business, although it was not closed at that time. Anyway, amusing contradiction - model bookshop with being closed due to low sales... of course, bookstores all around the world are hardly in a Golden Age era, but yeah, this one doesn't seem particularly notable, SYSTEMICBIAS aside. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 03:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every business in the world needs an article, and there's no evidence of notability considering most of the references that exist are merely routine reporting. The "successful models of bookselling" thing isn't reliable, as according to the same article the bookshop is owned by the state-owned media monopoly, so of course the Young Journalists Club (which is also owned by the same state-owned media monopoly) would want to promote it and keep it profitable. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 May 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 01:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faatemah Ampey[edit]

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

The sources in this BLP indicate that the subject of this article has some local coverage but taken together I don’t think they are sufficient to support a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:40, 20 May 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 09:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFD[edit]

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

Insufficient citations to establish notability; all the cites except for two are entries from Discogs.com. I proposed deletion, but apparently because it was PRODed in 2011, then redirected by the proposer rather than deleted, and then recreated a year later it needs to go through AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2011-10 ↻ restored, 2011-05 ✗ PROD
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:39, 20 May 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. Nthep (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ward[edit]

Christian Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is essentially a case of WP:BLP1E that otherwise fails both WP:POET and WP:BASIC.
Significant RS coverage is all clustered in time over a period of months in 2013 (e.g. 1 2 3). Short version, first "The Deer at Exmoor" was discovered to be virtually identical to a different poet's earlier work, sparking subsequent investigations that found the same for a number of the subject's other poems as well. Hence, even though it took a while for things to unfold completely, the coverage is still fundamentally related a single-event (expose of copying) and the subject is otherwise obscure.
Let me also state that I'm aware of the whole meta angle here. That this nomination is rewarding the efforts of the SPAs that first created the article and have more recently been trying to scrub it now that it's no longer something to be WP:PROUD of. However, none of that should matter at all in influencing our analysis. Either our notability criteria are met or they aren't and if they aren't the article should be deleted. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Tigermoth99 I'm not sure if I am allowed to comment as the page creator. My apologies if this is the case. If I am, I vote delete. The subject of the page is not notable or worthy of inclusion (low profile, only known for an event which has long gone and hasn't published any books or created a reputation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigermoth99 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 May 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 01:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Bonsor[edit]

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

Non-notable, seems more like somebody trying to promote themselves. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 17:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-05 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing on this article is nowhere near enough to a show a businessperson is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was unable to find any sourcing that covers the subject to help her qualify via WP:GNG. Also just because your father is famous, doesn't mean WP:INT. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 25 May 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 redirected if desired. Sandstein 09:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gilead, Iowa[edit]

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

Another Iowa post office, with the usual Poland China reference (and a bunch of false hits on shorthorns) but no trace on the topos. What the maps do show is a single farm. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with no prejudice for future recreation if better sourcing can be found. While WP:GEOLAND gives this WP:N based on the text of the article, as the nominator notes, it fails WP:V. Chetsford (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ghost towns WWW page, which is itself a ghost, stated outright that this was a post office, not an "unincorporated community". It's supposedly in Grove Township, Adair County, Iowa as of 1900 according to that source; but the 1914 History of Adair county by Kilburn has no mention of a Gilead anywhere. The map pin from the GNIS coördinates actually places it in Washington Township, Adair County, Iowa, but that doesn't change it not being in the History. I suspect the accuracy of the dead ghost towns source because of its misidentification of the township. Polk's 1918 Iowa State Gazetteer confirms that this was "a discontinued postoffice in Adair county". There seems to be nothing else discoverable about it. This is not notable. Uncle G (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Washington Township, Adair County, Iowa (where it was, according to the 1901 plat map), with mention of the post office establishment. There's no doubt Gilead was a post office, but even the most detailed plat maps from the early 1900s show only a post office there, and houses scattered a half a mile apart. There aren't even two houses near one another. No-one has called this anything but a post office. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is it really necessary to delete it or redirect it? People searching for it will be pleased to find a Wiki article on it, and to learn about the post office. Plus the lack of information is informative in its own way. Dr. Universe (talk) 05:31, 27 May 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 01:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Butzner Corner, Virginia[edit]

Butzner Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A while ago, there was a big bundled nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia. It has been found that most of these "corners" in Virginia represent either old boundary markers or named road junctions.

There are many of these "corners" for Stafford County, and searching suggested that only one Holly Corner, Virginia is a legitimate subject. The others are all mass-produced stubs from a questionable database.

Cox Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Davis Corner, Stafford County, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dodds Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fines Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fritters Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
McCarthys Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moores Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paynes Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Skidmore Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stones Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wallaces Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wildcat Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not believe these are notable. A search only gives profile and database-type sources, which are insufficient for notability. If they have many reliable sources that are independent (unlike databases or profiles), then some can stay. Feel free to disagree, as I am new to AFD. aeschylus (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all The prior AFD was wrongly closed. Reywas92Talk 17:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a better size than the last. These are not places. These are the corners of the boundaries around places. I was hoping to find at least something that directly states these to be the survey corners that they undoubtedly are, but with one exception I couldn't even find that much.

    From inspection of the map, Wallace's corner is obviously such a survey corner, being one corner of the land area next to Wallace Farms Lane that is marked "Wallace Farms" in the map beneath the pin on Bing Maps. Wallace Farms turns out to have a housing association. McCarthy's corner being on the corner formed by a McCarty Road is similarly indicative of a survey corner of some piece of land once owned by a McCarty. U.S. Civil War records for the Fredericksburg National Cemetery (locatable with Google Books) do indeed list people dying at a McCarty's Farm in Stafford county.

    I had high hopes of demonstrating survey corners with Wildcat and Butzner corners, which are two corners of a single roughly triangular piece of land. But the big news is Fines corner.

    Fines corner is on the corner of a land area running into the interior of which there is a Fines Lane, which just looks like a lane to an erstwhile farmhouse. So there's probably something named Fines Farm whose land this is one corner of. And there is! And it's in the history books. The Arcadia book ISBN 9780738518480 pages 36–37 places Chinn Farm on the south side of White Oak Road "across from Fines Farm" and the White Oak Museum. The White Oak Museum is at another corner of the very same area, on the north side of White Oak Road, with Fines corner and Fines Lane. Neither of these two farms are notable, not being documented in depth in the Arcadia history book or otherwise that I can find. The Fredericksburg National Cemetery records do list people dying at Chinn's Farm, too, though. And indeed at a Wallace's Farm in Stafford county. Fines Corner being one corner of the boundary to Fines Farm is indicative.

    So the claims of "unincorporated community" are all unsupported, having no sources and clearly not the case from map inspection, and in at least one case one can find the actual erstwhile farm whose survey boundary corner is claimed to be an "unincorporated community", with other farms listed in Civil War records. These are the corners of the boundaries of a bunch of 19th century farms.

    Uncle G (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • More GNIS rubbish problems that I found whilst researching all these, just in case someone is interested:
      • Aquia, Virginia — This is a district of Stafford county, that used to be spelled Acquia, not an "unincorporated community". Not to be confused with Aquia Harbour, Virginia.
      • Garrisonville, Virginia — This is another of the county's districts, not an "unincorporated community".
      • Hartwood, Virginia — a third district
      • White Oak, Virginia — White Oak Church and the White Oak Museum (neé White Oak Elementary School) exist, as does the White Oak Run (which is a stream), but it's hard to find an actual "unincorporated community". The district is George Washington district.
      • Holly Corner, Virginia — a U.S. Federal Highways Administration source gives the actual community as Holly Corner Estates. We don't have the slightly more notable Eagle Mine of Stafford County that was there, worked by the Rappahannock Gold Mining company and shut down by the Civil War, although most sources treat this as a blanket subject of gold mining in Stafford County, Virginia, our article of course mentioning neither gold nor mines at all. The Monroe Mine next to it matches up with Monroe Farm that Holly Corner is at a corner of.
    • Uncle G (talk) 00:41, 21 May 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_May_20&oldid=1025520796"