Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 11 October 13 >

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 delete. ✗plicit 14:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misho Amoli[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBASIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NACTOR, and WP:ANYBIO. There's also an apparent COI in the creation of the page; the photograph provided of the individual on the page is a high-resolution shirtless photograph (which appears to be a self-portrait) that is marked as the page creator's "own work". Furthermore, this page has been previously deleted and subsequently recreated by the same editor who created the initial version. Beyond a delete, I'd recommend that the page be salted so as to prevent future re-creation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article on Spanish Wikipedia has been deleted 9 times, on two seperate titles (one of which got salted) [1] [2] Haven't looked for sources yet but I'm currently leaning to support a delete & salt as per nom. Jumpytoo Talk 17:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't say I've ever encountered an article deleted so much before. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Paull[edit]

Matthew Paull (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 session musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO on all counts, and WP:COMPOSER. The best references towards WP:GNG are the two on Stuff.co.NZ though both heavily quote him and have little or any WP:SECONDARY coverage so I would say fail GNG too.The author is an WP:SPA, having only made formatting and grammar changes to other articles. They moved the draft to mainspace themselves bypassing AfC, and removed my PROD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don’t see anything to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:12, 19 October 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 14:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Sparrow[edit]

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

Appears to fail to have significant coverage required for WP:NCORP. I've searched up the charter airline on google news and have been unable to find non-churn significant coverage, though I have found a good bit of coverage relating to a U.S.-based design firm with the same name. The article itself has no references and contains a single external link to the company's website. Given this, I believe that the 5-plane Austrian airliner is unlikely to be notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find significant coverage and reliable sources and unable to independently verify any of the claims made in the article·Seddiq Sabri 21:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any significant coverage. This is my opinion. Thanks. Billyatthewheels (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double Agent 73[edit]

Double Agent 73 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes [3], review at CineMagazine [4] DonaldD23 talk to me 21:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes actually link to anything. Have you been able to read them to ascertain that they are full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, in line with WP:NFO#1? I'm also not sure that the CineMagazine review is full-length—it's three paragraphs and under 375 words—nor that Bart Rietvink is a nationally known critic. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • CineMagazine has been used on hundreds of articles and AfDs and the general consensus is that it is independent and reliable. It has editorial oversight according to its about page. As for RT, reviews can sometimes no longer be accessible online but that doesn't mean they never existed. They are on RT (which is a Wikipedia Reliable Source when using CRITIC reviews), the actual reviews don't necessarily need to still exist on the original site as websites close all the time, companies go out of business, and magazines go bankrupt and cease publication. That does not render what they once published as irrelevant and disqualifies them from notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because the reviews may have existed doesn't mean that there have been full-length, nor that their authors are nationally known critics, which is important here. And, as shown in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hideout_in_the_Sun, Rotten Tomatoes occasionally aggregates reviews for the wrong movie. Sources are required to be WP:PUBLISHED, and an archived copy of the media must exist for media to be considered to be published. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Rotten Tomatoes is somewhat rotten measure of notability. This is not Oscar material, or notable. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rotten Tomatoes is listed by Wikipedia as a reliable source and is a good measure of notability. And, are you saying only Oscar quality films should be on Wikipedia? DonaldD23 talk to me 21:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OP jumping in here: none of the alleged reviews from Rotten Tomatoes appear to pass the WP:PUBLISHED test. If they are published, it would be certainly nice for you to demonstrate that they are and that Rotten Tomatoes isn't aggregating incorrectly. Beyond that, to advocate for reviews being significant coverage of a film without first reading them is extraordinarily imprudent in light of our principle of verifiability. As WP:ROTTEN states, [i]f a specific review is considered for inclusion, always ensure that it is a reliable source. And, I don't think Ode+Joy was saying that only Oscar-level materials are worthy of Wikipedia, hence Ode+Joy's writing or. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, saying Oscar quality was a partial attempt at humor. But really, is this a famous movie by any measure? How many people have seen it? 20-25? My real objection is to all this "fluff" creating a fluff-pedia, after all. The other day I saw a page, attempting to create an article for a bus stop. At some point, we need to focus on really noteworthy items. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Double Agent 73 is discussed at length in Sleaze Artists: Cinema at the Margins of Taste, Style, and Politics, by Jeffrey Sconce, 2007, published by the Duke University Press and in ReFocus: the Films of Doris Wishman, by Alicia Kozma, 2021, published by Edinburgh University Press. This alone makes it notable. Also, at the very least, the CineMagazine review counts towards notability. This is just a selection of many sources and already sufficient for the WP:NFP. WP:NFO #2b is also met. In other words, contrary to what the intro claims, meets WP:NFILM. gidonb (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMDb lists 40 reviews. After having taken a quick look at some of them, I'm convinced that this meets our notability requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the reviews linked from IMDB show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of popes by age[edit]

List of popes by age (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 list article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of popes. All relevant age information is already given on the List of Popes page so it seems unnecessary to have a separate article for this. As it stands, the list is barely sourced and full of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA lists and does not even contain a full list of Popes and their age. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An indiscriminate collection of trivia. The selection of time ranges (e.g. average age between 1503 and 1700) appears to be arbitrary and/or original. No sources are provided for "probable youngest popes". Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, no salvageable pieces. pburka (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Perhaps this is entertaining, but it is not encyclopedic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nobody cares. Minkai (talk to me)(see where I screwed up) 12:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the gerontology obsessives obviously do, and are going to catch wind of this AfD and brigade it with WP:ITSINTERESTING and WP:ITSIMPORTANT votes, but that doesn’t change that it’s not a good article and deleting it is the right thing to do. Dronebogus (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a content fork of trivial information. Dronebogus (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all of the above. An obvious case of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Porvenir, New Mexico[edit]

El Porvenir, New Mexico (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 spot apparently in a larger locale with two campgrounds of the same name nearby (one forest service, the other private) and a mine, which may or may not be associated with our subject. All of this tends to clog searching. I did find one passing reference to it as a settlement but nothing of any substance, so I'm going to say it fails WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 October 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. I discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dratwa[edit]

Jim Dratwa (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 article is almost entirely sourced to primary sources, either the subject himself, or institutions that he works for or with. There are almost no independent secondary sources tht discuss the subject. The WP:GNG is not met, nor is WP:NACADEMIC; there is no indication that the subject's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. Vexations (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. A few decent cites on GS, but not enough yet. Reads like a vanity page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF, and I didn't find reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. I'm seeing signs that may point to WP:UPE in the page history. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding on my deletion rational: With a top cited work having about 100 citations (and many coauthors) on Google Scholar, he is far short of WP:NPROF C1, and there is no sign of any of the other NPROF criteria. The sources in the article appear to all be primary, and I did not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, let alone multiple such. So no WP:BASIC. Others below have advanced a possible WP:NCREATIVE case for his work as a game designer, but this would generally require multiple reviews of multiple games. I found only one review of a game that appears to be a possibly-reliable source. I do not see an WP:NCREATIVE case. I will change my !vote if I see a solid case for notability, but I do not see it so far. (And the article would then need to be completely rewritten to WP:DUEly focus on the subject's notable work.) I am concerned by the level of interest in this AfD by several not-quite-SPAs, including an attempt to create the illusion that a consensus has been reached or that WP:HEY applies. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not to be disregarded: subject is also a game author, a boardgame designer. Game authors rarely do 'only that'. Now even if on the other fronts the notability might be WP:Too soon, as a Board_game_designer the notability is right up there. The page should not be deleted. Please WP:EDITATAFD and add in the set of games this author designed (see Bill Dixon (game designer) for an example). Uliberty (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Secondary sources are there. I created the page initially and it has since been substantially improved by others. The process is ongoing, there is no need to preclude it. Sam Markanda (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which secondary sources provide significant coverage of the subject? Vexations (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The secondary sources are under References. Where there have been calls for specifying the page numbers, they were searched for and found and added. Where some had called for [citation needed], the citations have been sought and added. Also for the precise video timings. Sam Markanda (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reliable sources supporting notability. In particular, if you want to show WP:NCREATIVE for the work as a game designer, which might conceivably be possible, then there would need to be reviews in reliable sources of games. The article is promotional enough that it might anyway fall under WP:TNT. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    — Sam Markanda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Vexations (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC) (UTC). Vexations (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The secondary sources are there and the primary sources are used the way they ought to: WP:PRIMARY They make verifiable straightforward descriptive statements of facts. In fact those are mainly bibliographical references. Duly referenced institutional bios are used for points pertaining to the person's bio. AlexVDD (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added the games designed by the subject. And then also systematically added all the references there, which brings this to a higher standard than what is the norm in game designers BLP articles. Well, so much the better. Pandapedia8O0 (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    (If not familiar with the area, do take a look. (Paul Lidberg, Brad Talton, Allen Eldridge)). Pandapedia8O0 (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    — Pandapedia8O0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Vexations (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC) (UTC). Vexations (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal for deletion has served its purpose. Well done, the ensuing discussion has led to concrete improvements to the page. Recommend withdrawal of the deletion proposal by the nominator, in light of the discussion and of the additions to the article. Uliberty (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your suggestion. If the subject is only notable as a game designer, and not as a philosopher (or sculptor) then the article would need to be rewritten to make that clear. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck blocked socks, per WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sam_Markanda. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a prolific game designer is not enough for notability; we need evidence that the games have attracted attention (such as in published reviews), not present in the article as it stands. And even if that were the case, WP:TNT applies, both for most of the article and its focus on other stuff than game design, and for the pattern of promotional editing apparent here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best, WP:TOOSOON, plus there is some weird SPA/PAID/COI issue with accounts involved (and voting here, and getting blocked). Ironically, if the subject wants to promote themselves as a researcher, they should start by creating a Google Scholar account... sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TOOSOON appears to apply. I don't see any decent secondary independent sources in the article or with a quick search. I'm wondering a bit if the SPAs are Joe jobs of some sort, but doesn't matter, doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 19 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adem Atay[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL as hasn't played or managed in a senior international match or a match between two teams from fully professional leagues. As for WP:GNG, there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources, per a quick search. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Surprising how old the article is. Fails NFOOTY in first instance. As for GNG, being an academy coach is per se not significant and I doubt if the necessary coverage exists. I thought about draftifying but I don't think there's enough potential to justify it. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:GNG, unless someone is better at Google searching than I am. GauchoDude (talk) 13:50, 19 October 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susane Colasanti[edit]

Susane Colasanti (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 author does not appear to meet notability requirements for an author. Authors must show significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. This author did publish a book, but the sources are mostly her own website and Kirkus reviews, the latter of which are a baseline industry standard and do not reflect significant coverage. Interviews listed in the references cannot be accessed when I clicked, and the only major review I could find online appears to be a user-submitted review, here. In my view, the article itself does not appear to follow MOS guidelines and is promotional and unencyclopedic in style, which could be fixed, but that would require reliable, independent sources, which are hard to come by. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. New information has been brought to this, and some editors have made strong points. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was notified, but all I did was add the books, library holdings, translations, and some of the reviews. I want to thank Pyrrho the Skeptic for calling this to my attention--I left it a sparse but decent article 8 years ago, and was a little horrified to see what had become of it.S
As forr notability, she's in Gale Something About the Author, which used to be known as Dictionary of Literary Biography, the standard bibliographic reference work in the field. (Most large public and academic libraries have the set online.) This to me is a sufficient decisive factor, for WP includes all such authoritative subject biographical encyclopedias. Additionally there's a review in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books the reviews in SLJ and Booklist, both from the American Library Association are brief, but they have consistently been held at AfDs as meeting the requirements for WP:AUTHOR. :I suspect it may not have realized that in spite of its popularist title, Something About he Author is part of the authoritative series of Gale biographical reference books. (I seem to remember that when a librarian I warned the publisher about using such a title).
The references to number of books in WorldCat libraries appears in thousand of our articles; it has not been recognized as a decisive factor, but it is suggestive. (for poplar work, there is a direct correlation between reviews in Booklist, SLJ, and LJ with public library holdings, for public libraries buy books on the basis of just those reviews). I do not rely on Kirkus, for some of its reviews are paid for (though not written) by the author in the case of self-published books--tho these books are not self-published , I consider such a compromise unacceptable, though I know others in WP have defended its use.
As for encyclopedic nature, I agree the teaching section must be removed. It were not in the article when i last saw it, in 2013--they we added a few days laterby another vwery prolific editor that year at [5] I suspect them, and many thousand other contributions of the now departed [[User::MrNiceGuy1113|
MrNiceGuy1113]], to be likely copypaste, and I have removed the section. i wouldn't object to removing a little more of it. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly needs some cleanup, but she appears to have authored a body of notable works, so passes WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is established by independent, reliable sources, though. I don't see those sources. Do you? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article includes (poorly formatted) citations showing many of her books were reviewed by Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly and more. These books would all pass WP:NBOOK. Are you claiming this is a WP:HOAX? If so, that's a different matter. pburka (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • All of those sources are publications that write short reviews for the industry to help libraries and booksellers make decisions. SLJ, for example, publishes 6,000 reviews a year. They are not really the same as general interest reviews for the public (NYTimes publishes only 20 - 30). Those industry sources are pretty standard, and not a sign of notablility, as opposed to just published by a major publisher, which is not, in and of itself, notable. In my interpretation, anyway. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • At AFD those are generally accepted as evidence of notability. They're specialty publications that focus on book reviews, so of course they publish more of them than a general newspaper might. 6,000 reviews is still very selective considering several million books are published each year. If you disagree with the guideline I suggest starting a discussion at WP:NBOOK, but I would oppose any change to disregard specialists in the field of book review such as Kirkus, LJ and PW. pburka (talk) 16:38, 13 October 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 (WP:SNOW). Geschichte (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informing science[edit]

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

Bringing this to AfD after discussion at WP:COIN. Badly PoV article, written by CoI/PAID editors and cited (albeit with no footnotes) to sources published by the organisation which it promotes. The subject appears to be a neologism, promoted by the founder of that organisation; the organisation is a publisher which appears on the updated Beall's list (of "predatory open-access publishers"; see [6]).

If we need an article on this subject; this is not it, and WP:TNT should apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not obvious to me that there should be an article on this, but it is clear that there's no way to get from this article to anything resembling a legit WP article without going through far more work than it would take to create something from scratch. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very hard to determine if this has any notability outside its own walled garden of self-serving sources. If there was ever a case for WP:TNT, this is surely it. Edwardx (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --SVTCobra 21:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Turgidly written, COI through and through, and frankly egotistical. No, you don't get to call your own article "seminal"; go away now. I'll echo the comment by Zeromonk over at COIN, in that I'd never heard of this group despite having been active for years in circles where I would have heard if they had done something noteworthy. Trying to find third-party sources backs up that impression. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a coatrack for a Informing Science Institute brochure. TNT. MarioGom (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are some citations of related topics, but it shows some signs of being a walled garden, and notability is questionable. WP:TNT applies in any case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. scope_creepTalk 17:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't decide if this is more like a brochure, a prospectus or a textbook. It is certainly not encyclopedic. TNT is the most appropriate avenue. --- Possibly ☎ 21:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like a spoof. Boud (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire. This is not for Wikipedia. Get some better sources (and actual third-party discourse) and come back. jps (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 18 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bahadur (film)[edit]

Sam Bahadur (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)

WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to divorce its notability from the primary inclusion criteria for films. As always, we do not necessarily want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every future film that enters the production pipeline -- with rare exceptions for films that garner a lot of coverage during the production process (e.g. Star Wars or Marvel films), we're normally only interested in films that have actually been released, and can show notability factors like having been reviewed by professional film critics and/or winning or being nominated for major film awards. But the release date here is still TBA, and the sourcing consists of two unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all and two very short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to deem this as having already cleared the bar. Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the film has been released and clears the notability bar accordingly, but nothing here is enough to deem this film already notable today. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is a candidate for delete as the article is based on proposed announcement. I feel article for announced or not released films should not be allowed.Advait.kansal (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify would be my vote. Has notable people associated with it so it might become notable. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the draftify solution is that one or two more citations and the editor will resubmit their article to move to article space. And then we have this discussion all over again. Platonk (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG and NFF. Per Notability, future films: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production." Platonk (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The production does not seem to meet WP:NFF guidelines yet. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:00, 16 October 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 – there's consensus that the sources on he-wiki are sufficient to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry (prison service)[edit]

Katy Perry (prison 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)

Non-notable person. No SIGCOV besides the notice of her appointment and press announcements about a prison outbreak. Natg 19 (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The corresponding article in Hebrew has eleven references. Generals are very often notable. The head of a country's prison service is not a cabinet position, but is only one or two levels below a cabinet position. I added a tag to the article saying that it could be expanded with text from the Hebrew Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cannot find an exact source for this, but officers of the rank of brigadier or above have tended to be regarded as inherently notable or generally notable. PatGallacher (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is the head of the prison service. Lots of sources in Hebrew. Free1Soul (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain.Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was also going to say the Hebrew article has reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 15:20, 18 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WHOOP (company)[edit]

WHOOP (company) (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 to meet WP:NCORP. Seems like an UPE. Ramaswar(discuss) 16:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an UPE and I (Ricecakes55) am not connected to this company is any way. I do agree that additional information would help this article. 10:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricecakes55 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iyabbo Jolaade Adewuyi[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Princess of Ara 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lists one source, which is a dead link. It has been tagged since 2016 with no substantial improvement. I cannot find any references online to this person that is not a distillation of the Wikipedia article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my memory is that previous articles on Nigerian state commissioners have routinely been deleted at AfD and I don’t see any other basis for notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 19 October 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 two relists and no indication of further sourcing, I think there is a reasonable consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Club (London)[edit]

Eight Club (London) (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 believe the topic of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Standard Google searches didn't show any non-trivial or independent news coverage. The only nominally substantial coverage was in allinlondon.co.uk (doesn't seem like a reliable source) but that article is promotional and was duplicated on the company's LinkedIn page. The only other significant news mention I saw was a single paragraph on this Insider list. Zetana (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zetana (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Zetana (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found some references in Campaign (magazine), a periodical for the advertising industry that also covers high-end venues. I think the coverage from various sources that now appears in the article is sufficiently in-depth and independent to show notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain: Regarding the Campaign sources, did you find any others besides the ones currently in the article? I don't feel that the Campaign articles or the other ones on the article are sufficiently in-depth to satisfy GNG, as most of them only have a paragraph or two on Eight Club. For the ones that are longer (I see two, The Kolberg Partnership for allinlondon.co.uk and Paul Caffell for fluidfoundation.com), the allinlondon.co.uk is a promotional piece; I think the Caffell piece is the only coverage to be an RIS although I'm not sure how reliable Fluid London is (and the way it's written is also veering towards promotionalism). Zetana (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the Fluid Foundation source is OK, but none of the others are acceptable; they are either promotional (The allinlondon piece looks like a press release disguised as journalism, revealed by the penultimate paragraph) or simply a small part of large compilations of brief reviews (basically lists). I cannot find any more in-depth coverage. This isn't one of those venerable gentleman's clubs, it was established fairly recently and its exclusive nature may mean it's still WP:TOOSOON for multiple instances of significant coverage to be written about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: “standard Google search”, as if that was authoritative—I have no position on the AfD. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I said that to indicate to other editors what kind of searches I made in evaluating my decision to list this article at AfD. I make no claim that it is authoritative, obviously, anyone who thinks that misunderstands what Google is for. Something I forgot to mention in my initial comment was that I also tried a couple of newspaper engine searches in addition to Google's newspapers archive, but didn't see anything other than a couple of brief mentions of "obit says X local person frequented Eight Club". The ones I have access to are primarily in the US, though, so it was difficult to properly evaluate that aspect (I think the engines primarily indexed more prominent British outlets which introduces its own search bias). However, given that Eight Club started in 2009, I would have expected at least a few decent online sources if I thought it was significant. Zetana (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had encountered a few notable subjects recently that have good sources located in the physical world rather than the Google indexed world. I guess I was responding to that. Some editors have behaved as if that which doesn’t have a weblink does not exist. My bad. I will cover my trigger. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No harm done, I have occasionally seen those kinds of rationales as I browse and it is equally frustrating to me!! Zetana (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. The article and most sources have a distinctly promotional tone; even the most in-depth one from Campaign reads like a thinly veiled press release. Wikipedia is not for advertising. And as noted, the sourcying is very thin. Sandstein 20:46, 20 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chanda dynasty[edit]

Chanda dynasty (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 (I've removed them all) were either not WP:RS or made no mention of a Chanda dynasty. Nothing shows up on Google either. (Note that there is a "Chandra dynasty" in a different region of India.) RegentsPark (comment) 14:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RegentsPark (comment) 14:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Extremely dubious article that fails WP:V and is best disposed of. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... one of the many barely-even-stubs lying around. Not notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as not verifiable. --Lockley (talk) 17:50, 19 October 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 Kevin Pollak#Podcasting. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Pollak's Chat Show[edit]

Kevin Pollak's Chat Show (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 and WP:WEBCRIT. Cannot find any reliable, non-promotional and non-self generated sources on this podcast. Kevin Pollak is notable, but the notability is not inherited by the podcast. None of the claims of notability in this article can be verified. If anyone can find reliable sources, I would be happy to see them. Rogermx (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what little information is verifiable to Kevin Pollak or maybe just do a redirect. I found a bunch of passing mentions and this LA Times source that discusses the show a little bit, but nothing substantial. I came across this passing mention on The Hollywood Reporter that claims the show won a Streamy Awards, but the Streamy Awards website says the show was only nominated not that it actually won. There is also some WP:INTERVIEW content that discusses the show a little bit such as this article from The Jewish Exponent, but these would be considered primary sources and aren't much more than trivial mentions anyway. If anyone finds more sources then ping me. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kevin Pollock where the podcast already has a section. I see nothing worth merging. Realizing that somebody worked hard on that directory of 400 podcast guests, that is not encyclopedic content. --Lockley (talk) 19:12, 13 October 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 Hamate bone. I'll add the hatnote as requested. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamatum[edit]

Hamatum (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 was WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination) (2020) that the vast majority of specific epithets do not belong on DAB pages. This page consists of two such and one valid entry. Redirect to Hamate bone as {{R from alternative name}}. Narky Blert (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on redirect suggestion: the word only appears in that article as part of the Latin "Os hamatum". If it is a synonym, on its own, please will someone add it to the article with a WP:RS. PamD 13:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps add Hamatum to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. PamD 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Splendid, thanks. PamD 14:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hamate bone, now that it gets a mention there, and then add there: {{redirect|Hamatum|its use in taxonomy|List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names#H{{!}}List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names}} ie
    "Hamatum" redirects here. For its use in taxonomy, see List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names.
I've now added hamatus/a/um etc to that list. PamD 14:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The redirect Draft:Achilleas Salamouras is also deleted as dependent on a deleted page, if more sources become available then anyone who wants a copy of the article to be restored to draft space can ask at WP:REFUND or on my usertalk. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Achilleas Salamouras[edit]

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

Contested draftify. Draft:Achilleas Salamouras should be kept regardless of whether this one is deleted or not. Salamouras hasn't made his debut in a WP:FPL yet so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The creator has added some new sources but none of them are detailed enough; one is a profile page from PAOK's website, one is just a picture and the final one is just a sentence about him. A Greek language search comes up with multiple squad lists for PAOK B, some of which contain a sentence or two about him and briefly mention the loan moves to Volos and Niki Volos and the fact that he is a student, none of which meets WP:GNG in my view. Aside from that, I found one small transfer announcement.

We do sometimes keep articles on youth footballers that haven't made their debut in exceptional circumstances where the coverage is extremely strong and from multiple WP:RS websites. I'm not convinced that this is one of those extremely rare cases. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:47, 12 October 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 Interlude (1957 film). Eddie891 Talk Work 12:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interlude (1957 song)[edit]

Interlude (1957 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 B-side of a single which charted at Billboard #73 ("Around the World In 80 Days"; we have no article; see The McGuire Sisters), sourced only to IMDb (non-WP:RS). Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Retarget to Interlude (1957 film), the film in whose soundtrack it first appeared. Narky Blert (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Also retarget that to article mentioned by nominator. This article has less information as one or two line, which is not good. --Jyoti Roy (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 October 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. Technically would qualify for a speedy keep under WP:SK#1 per the nom's subsequent comment supporting keeping the article but it's been 14 days anyways. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petrit Ago[edit]

Petrit Ago (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 single cited source contains no significant coverage of the subject, nor can I find any online. The article itself doesn't seem to contain any credible claims of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. Being head of customs is not a cabinet level position, but it's probably one level below. There are lots of news stories abut him, but it's odd the way he's referred to as a businessman without mentioning his company Impuls. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eastmain:, thanks for adding those references. That does seem like sufficient coverage for a keep. Lennart97 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 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. By a headcount, the outcome would be keep or no consensus, but we don't go by headcounts at AfD. We weigh arguments in the light of applicable policies or guidelines.

If, as here, deletion is requested because an article is alleged to fail the core policy WP:NOR, and prima facie valid arguments are made to that effect, then "keep" arguments must directly address and attempt to refute these arguments for deletion in order to be given weight in the closure. But in this AfD, very few "keep" arguments did so. Most defended the article on grounds of notability, but because non-notability is not the reason for which deletion is requested, these arguments are beside the point and are not given weight here. We don't keep original research even if it is original research about a notable topic. For the same reasons, the other "keep" opinions that do not address the WP:NOR problem must also be discounted.

For the most part, only two people attempted to refute the NOR arguments - Minimumbias and Ber31. Because reasonable people can disagree on WP:SYNTH questions, it is not for me to say whose arguments are stronger in this regard (even if I wanted to, I couldn't reliably do so because of the walls of text). But what I can say is that among the editors who addressed the reason for deletion, those supporting "keep" are greatly in the minority.

Accordingly, policy-based rough consensus is to delete the articles in their current state. They can be recreated if this can be done in a non-OR manner. Sandstein 21:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation[edit]

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook example of a trivial cross-categorisation of two entirely unrelated characteristics (which university one went/worked/... at vs. won Nobel prize). Also, and I must give credit to OCNative on this one, This page begins with a list of tables with no refs. Then it goes into a whole bunch of subsections about the universities and then almost every university listed there's a note that the university's official count is lower than the article's count. Each university's table has a notes section where there is an explanation of why a particular university's affiliate is excluded from the list. This list seems to be heavy on WP:SYNTH if not outright Wikipedia:No original research. Strangely, the article also links Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. So fails both WP:NOT and WP:OR... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a strange one for many reasons. Mainly, the current article does not do what it claims to do. This is a list of Universities by Nobel Prize Winning Affiliates not a list of Nobel laureates. As it stands the article’s content is some of the most extensive WP:OR and WP:SYNTH I have seen. This is demonstrated by the completely original listing criteria at the start of the article, wide variety of lists and abundance of caveats. WP:BEFORE gives very little results and not enough to convince me it meets WP:LISTN. I might be convinced of a move to List of Universities by Affiliated Nobel Laureates as there are slightly more sources discussing this (although this is mainly just universities selling themselves) BUT this would need MAJOR clean up, simplification and sourcing. Probably better to WP:TNT. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes it is strange, but some people want to know it. I am not against any name change. I would also not be against removing the summary section(s) at the top. Many of them are linked from the university articles. Some years ago I put in the {{Anchor}}s for them, as they were previously linked by number. If the article is deleted, the sections could be moved into the individual university articles, but I think I like them here better. (Most university articles are already big enough.) The top ones have their own individual articles, but most of them don't. Gah4 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but some people want to know it" is essentially WP:ITSINTERESTING. There are lots of things that people want to know which don't go in an encyclopedia, either because it's too much detail for a summary (the case here), or because it is not known (hence why you have people doing research, you know...), or for other reasons. For this to be worth keeping, there would need to be sources which discuss the link between which university one went to and Nobel prizes. As one can see, there is no such link (because exceptional discoveries have no bias for which university one went to?), no source to pretend there is such a link (except universities wanting to promote themselves and take at least partial credit, of course), and nothing to substantiate the accuracy of the content on the list. Not only is there no valid reason to keep this, but then also moving this to individual university articles would be moving the problem elsewhere: I assume that Nobel winners are already included in the usual "Notable alumni" section, without all of the OR or the rest, and there's nothing else that needs to be done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a page on "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation" could be created that is encyclopedic, but this one is so fatally flawed that it ought to be deleted. The entire page is basically premised on WP:SYNTH. The page literally disputes the refs to the universities. Considering how much universities are willing to brag about winning Nobels, this page is quite heavy on someone's synthesis of the data claiming a far broader number of Nobel winners for each university than even the universities themselves claim. OCNative (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. As far as I know, no conclusions are reached or implied. Some data that would otherwise be somewhere else in Wikipedia is collected together. As above, I would remove the Summary. I suppose one could do it alphabetically instead of by number, which removes the possible implication that higher rankings are for better schools. Gah4 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I just noticed that it is a sortable table. It seems that one fix might be to exchange the rank and university columns, and default sort by university name. That removes an implication that a higher rank means a school is better. Gah4 (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another piece of “X by random unrelated category Y” listcruft with a side of school puffery and a dollop of “it’s WP:INTERESTING to someone somewhere”. Dronebogus (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nom. Just a Trivial cross-categorisation of the unrelated characteristics 'which university one went/worked/... at vs. won Nobel prize', that fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR. I've never seen a bigger case of WP:SYNTH in all my years editing. The article is just one massive synthesis, with seemingly endless WP:OR notes explaining more information and caveats. The article in its early tables also likely violates MOS:FLAG. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, for the reasons I was quoted on in the nom (this is the first time I've ever been quoted in someone else's nom, so I ought to vote for my reasons). I think a "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation" could certainly be created that is encyclopedic, but this particular one is so fatally flawed that it would be better to blow it up and start over. This article is an extreme case of WP:SYNTH. If someone were to restart the page, it ought to match with a legitimate source (i.e. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/lists/affiliations.php). (For reference, my note quoted in the nom was originally at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation in hopes of someone being able to fix the page.) OCNative (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this kind of thing is one's passion project, that's fine, but Wikipedia isn't the place to host such things when they go against policies like WP:NOR. This belongs on whatever the Nobel Prize's version of a fandom wiki is, not here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely horrible reasons proposed for deletion. 1) First, arguing that the tables are un-referenced is simply not understanding this page. The summary tables reflect the entries in the page. Each person's affiliation is confirmed by at least one reliable source. Note that even Wikipedia policy MOS:LEAD states citations can be avoided in the lead because the references are provided in the body. 2) Secondly, this list is definitely not a trivial cross-categorizations. This list has important value to many people, especially those in academic. Numerous universities keep a record of a similar list, with counting criteria ranging from generous to conservative. The official Nobel website also keeps a list [7], but with the affiliations being "working at XXX when awarded". In particular, Cambridge university [8], MIT[9], UChicago [10] and others over the years have adopted their official countings in line with this list. Even Forbes has cited this article [11]. 3) Absolutely no original research or synthesis in this article, which has been stated clearly around the summary tables for multiple times. I believe most people who think there is original research in this article either does not read the article carefully, or does not know how academia/universities operate. What are your evidences of "syntheses" or "original research"? 4) Absolute no respect paid to the work of many other editors and mine over the year, and the consensuses reached in the Talk Page, to improve this article. This is absolute disrespect. Minimumbias (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attacking other editors for “disrespecting” you adds nothing to your case and only makes you look bad. Dronebogus (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not attacking other editors. I am just angry. Similar topic has been discussed over the years in the Talk Page [12] by many editors in a much more respectful way. Never once did people directly coming here to nominate for deletion. Clearly, people including myself who have worked on this page in a unbiased way would feel the same way. This is trying to delete our work without even trying to understanding our work. Minimumbias (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don’t claim ownership of an article. Wikipedia and its content is a public project that doesn’t belong to anyone, no matter how much hard work you and others have put into it. This is not a referendum on you or the quality of your work, it’s simply about policy and forming a consensus about whether this page is in violation of the policies about what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Dronebogus (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The project doesn't belong to anyone does not mean our work can be simply deleted without trying to understand the content of our work and that our work does not violate Wikipedia policies. These are two different things. We have been discussing the content in Nobel's Talk Page for years, and many consensuses have been reached, but none of the people here supporting "deletion" ever participated. For example, I never remember you participating in the past discussions. Respecting others work can be done the same time as following Wikipedia policies, right? Minimumbias (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just because you participated in a page doesn’t give you special rights over it in any way, “ownership” or not. In any case this is WP: INDISCRIMINATE on the grounds that it’s just a collection of arbitrary statistics, and what WP is WP:NOT trumps other policies like WP:V. Dronebogus (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Did I ever say I own this page? I have stated above that the consensuses have been reached over the years in the Talk Page, and you (and others above) never participated. Now people who don't take a detailed look at the content of this page or never participated in the improvement of this page suddenly made a move to delete this page, because thinking it's some "arbitrary statistics"? I have stated above that there is no original research or synthesis in this article. What is your evidence that there are original researches? All entries are supported by at least one reliable source, where does the issue of "Verifiability" come from? Did you ever take a close look at this page and our work before making a judgement? And as I stated above, this page has important value and is referenced to and cited by other important sources. Minimumbias (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well that's these sources' problem for referencing Wikipedia, not ours. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Indeed. Also, the Forbes item mentioned above is a "contributor" post, and so not a reliable source per WP:FORBESCON. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's certainly your problem, not the sources' problem. Many important sources citing this list is a direct proof of the value of this list, refuting your argument that this is just some arbitrary cross-categorization. What you people are trying to do right now, quite simply, is that you are judging this list based on your own value, motivation and understanding, instead of respecting what other editors (especially experts like us who work in academia) are saying over the years and the consensus we have reached. This is violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. In particular, without looking at the article in detail and engaging in Talk Page, you directly threw out several accusations in the beginning of this "deletion page", trying to mislead other editors to view the list in a way that is not true. And please don't use that "WP:FORBESCON" as an way to convince people that the Forbes article is not reliable, because the writer of that Forbes article is a respected scholar and educator [13]. The very fact that some editors think articles written by experts like us who actually work in academia are unreliable for this list is such a logical contradiction. First you say there should be no original research and should be objective in Wikipedia, then you refute experts' opinions and label them as "unreliable". This is violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR outright. --Minimumbias (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • On the contrary, that's how WP:FORBESCON and the rest of WP:RSP are applied all the time. NPOV means fairly summarizing the reliable sources that are available, and NOR means not adding to what the reliable sources say. In order to implement those policies, we have to identify which sources are reliable. Here, the subject-matter expertise is questionable, to say the least: we've got a university administrator rather than, say, a historian of science or a journalist on the Nobel beat. Why is a clinical psychologist who specializes in abnormal psychology and law-and-psychology a relevant subject-matter expert here? Nobel disease is only a metaphor, after all. It's tautologically true that everyone here is judging this list based on our own value[s], motivation and understanding. Pages that have existed for a long time do get nominated for deletion upon occasion; the encyclopedia is a big place, and things can happen in corners of it without getting noticed by a wider circle of editors. There's no malice involved, just different perspectives. XOR'easter (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • 1) Your arrogance is beyond my understanding. That person is a university president, who knows how universities operates. In addition, he is a scholar in clinical psychology and "chair of the department of psychology, dean of the graduate school, and provost." [14]. Why would you randomly disrespect people? 2) Secondly, your opinions on academic affiliations and how universities operate has made me believe that you are probably not an expert in academia. So why not let people listen more to us and to reliable sources? 3) Thirdly, your opinions on why this page must be deleted have been refuted by me and editors below. --Minimumbias (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I don't see how it's disrespectful to point out that someone is not a historian specializing in the Nobel Prize. I also don't see how, even if we granted that WP:SPS let us use that blog post as a source, it contributes to a case for keeping the list. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for itself, even if cycled through an intermediate stage. Plenty of articles here get pointed to from the outside and deleted anyway; opinions elsewhere on the Internet don't always line up with wiki-notability, which is frustrating sometimes. XOR'easter (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • It is not about pointing out whether a person is a historian. It is about not recognizing the facts while pretending you did. You said "Here, the subject-matter expertise is questionable... we've got a university administrator... Why is a clinical psychologist who specializes in abnormal psychology and law-and-psychology a relevant subject-matter expert here? " Since we are talking about academic affiliations and the value of this Nobel list, what you said simply misled people to think that a university president and a respected scholar does not understand these basic points of academia and does not have the qualification to provide reliable comments. This is already disrespectful. Moreover, the Forbes article is not a random blog. Many notable scientists and scholars publish commentaries in media like New York Times and Forbes, as "senior contributors". They are even more qualified on certain topics than the regular employee editors of these media agencies. Now you want to label the articles written by regular employee editors as "reliable" but these scholars as "unreliable"? I don't think so. Hence, my point is clear, this Nobel list has undeniable important value, and should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Minimumbias (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN – see Leading Institutions Where Nobel Prize Winners Were Educated, for example. This took me all of 10 seconds to find but then I had a good education too. These characteristics are not "entirely unrelated" as the nomination asserts. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inevitably, the source you present has numbers which differ dramatically from those in the article, further demonstrating its blatant status as, at the absolute best, WP:OR... And my nomination nowhere mentions LISTN, because WP:NOT and WP:OR of course overrides that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cited a book which was published in 2003 and so, of course, its numbers are different. That's because Wikipedia is kept up-to-date and this is not a bug; it's a feature. WP:LISTN states that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been" and so the notability of the topic is proven. Keeping the stats up-to-date is a matter of simple arithmetic and so that's not OR per WP:CALC. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This doesn't address that this particular list doesn't even match with more recent ones (such as [15]; or the one on the Nobel site [16], or those claimed by the universities themselves), and still does not address the NOT issues (including WP:NOTMIRROR, especially if we can't write anything but a plain list). Your vote indeed stands... on very shaky grounds. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The more lists RC points to, the more the notability is confirmed. If there are differences which require reconciliation or explanation then that's a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • This isn't a question of notability but of WP:NOT and of the entirely original methodology employed by the list as it stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:NOT is not a wild-card which may be used to delete anything that RC takes a dislike to. WP:NOT is a bundle of specific issues but none of them have been specified. The appeal to that policy is therefore just a WP:VAGUEWAVE and so should be dismissed. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your argumentum ad lapidem is not convincing. I have readily explained how this is based on two mostly unrelated variables, how the list is OR at least in its current instance, not only because it is based on poor criteria, and finally how this is unencyclopedic because encyclopedia =/= databse. You can keep pretending your vote stands, but as far as I can see it is standing on water, and we all know that outside of mythological stories, that doesn't happen. Done here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • RC again asserts, without a scrap of evidence, that the education of the laureates is unrelated to their prize-winning. This is utter nonsense as there are plenty of sources about this. For example, see Academic background of Nobel prize laureates reveals the importance of multidisciplinary education..., Effects of homophily and academic reputation in the nomination and selection of Nobel laureates or The implications of educational and methodological background for the career success of Nobel laureates. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Unless those sources use the same definition of "affiliation" as this list, I don't see how they help with either the WP:LISTN argument or the WP:SYNTH concerns. (They talk more about nationality than anything else, and even when they get down to the level of specific institutions, they use different criteria than this page does. For example, Chan and Torgler (2014) assigns Walter Kohn to the University of Toronto, while this list gives him to Harvard.) Establishing notability of a group requires references about that grouping, not a somewhat-related one. Sources like that could be useful for writing prose in the articles on the Nobel Prizes themselves, but I'd really have to stretch to say that they help the case here. XOR'easter (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We're here to discuss the nomination which claims that these are "two entirely unrelated characteristics". The point of the sources is to demonstrate that this claim is false. As the claim is false, its conclusion fails and so we're done. What we're not here to do is to make the page in question perfect – see WP:NOTCLEANUP and policy WP:IMPERFECT. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We're here to discuss a nomination which says a good deal more than that. The sources don't demonstrate that "affiliation", in the sense used in this article, is a characteristic whose relation to the Nobel has been studied. XOR'easter (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • The page in question has existed for over 15 years with over 1500 editors while its talk page has had extensive discussions with over 180 editors. As they have thrashed out such details and arrived at the current structure, we need more than a handful of drive-by deletionists to overturn that considered consensus. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just revisited this article and noticed it has a WHOPPING 852 REFERENCES (mostly from primary sources such as CVs and the Nobel website)! For context that is more than the WWII article. Cannot think of better evidence of the piecemeal WP:SYNTH of this article.Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said above, but maybe lost in the middle of other things: from WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. As far as I know, no conclusions are reached or implied. I find it especially strange that the number of references is used to indicate WP:SYNTH. Larger articles should have more references. The only thing that I could see as possibly WP:SYNTH is the ranking. (Though I suspect many other articles rank things.) I believe, however, that ranking isn't necessary. It could be done in alphabetical order, for example. Gah4 (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's drawing conclusions about what counts as "affiliated" with a given university. The introduction is really quite explicit that the page has its own invented criteria for what counts and what doesn't. Whatever the merits of a project like this, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely untrue. Academic affiliation with a university is almost a universally defined term in academia: students, faculty, short-term staff. A simple source [17] is already provided in the list. So we are simply following the universal definition. Saying that we are "inventing" this term is basically not understanding how universities operate. Over the years, the only point being explained in the introduction was that "award-based" visiting positions are not affiliations and in general should not be included in this list. We are not inventing "affiliation". We are simply explaining it to the public. Minimumbias (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Taking a definition used for one purpose and deciding that it's the right definition to use for another is WP:SYNTH. (And I've been studying, researching, and teaching at universities for over twenty years now, so I'm fairly sure I know how they work.) XOR'easter (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did you see what I said above, "universally defined"? It is not for a particular purpose. And if you know how the universities operate, then tell me what other "academic affiliations" are there? Or, any of the "students, faculty, postdocs, visiting professors who teach" is not an academic affiliation? Minimumbias (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Excluding "exchange students" and "auditing students" is an arbitrary choice. The entire paragraph beginning Further explanations is a collection of arbitrary choices. (Plenty of research happens over the summer, not least because the undergraduates are out of the way.) Taking the standards that Cambridge uses to make themselves look good and applying them to other institutions is synthesis. Strangely, the text itself makes reference to Wikipedia policies on no original research and objectivity/neutrality, but without understanding what those policies mean. It's just as much OR to say that one type of position counts as much as another as it is to say they count differently. The entire page is an attempt to use MediaWiki for something the software was not designed to do — this calls out for a database if anything ever did. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Absolute misinterpretation. 0) Let me repeat it one more time, we are using universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation", instead of Cambridge's definition. That Cambridge source was provided to you to give you one illustration. 1) First, you call several explanations as "arbitrary choices". Let me first tell you that these explanations were consensus reached by me and other editors over the years, with many careful discussions on how NOT to violate the Wikipedia policies and how to tell the public what is true. You never participated in those discussions, and now you are simply accusing us of making arbitrary choices and of not knowing those policies? How arrogant! 2) Summer school in many universities are open to the public, especially public universities. These programs take many students not for academic purposes, but also for extra financial income. Auditing students and exchange students are not included for similar reason. They are not officially enrolled. This is fact, not made up by us. In particular, exchange students at a university are not official academic affiliations because their official identity are affiliated with their home university. 3) Labelling this page as something like database we attempted to do is simply judging this list from your own point of view. By the same logic, you can go to whatever lists in Wikipedia you don't like and call them "database" that should be deleted. 4) Most importantly, all of what you said do not support "deletion". This is a wrong place of discussion for some of your questions and accusations. Minimumbias (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Minimumbias: I know these exchanges can get heated sometimes (I fall into this category too often) but I strongly suggest you remove your personal attacks above. Admins often take into account these kinds of things when closing. Robust disagreement is good for the project but we shouldn't forget the importance of respect and civility. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks for the reminder. Even though I'm not sure which content you are referring to, I've removed my observation in the first sentence, if that's what you meant. Moreover, as I stated above, please do not forget that in this deletion page, the accusations and disrespect are mainly towards me and the other editors who worked on this Nobel page for years, not started by us. --Minimumbias (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Vladimir.copic: Minimumbias has not been involved in any personal attacks. Please don't make false accusations. The comments of XOR'easter were extremely disrespectful and insulting towards editors who contributed to "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation" for years. Such behavior is totally inappropriate. Ber31 (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Maybe I am overly sensitive but I believe comments like these [18] [19] are below the civility standards of the project and speak directly about another editor rather than the topic at hand. I am just passing on some friendly advice in good faith. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Come on, Vladimir.copic. Please don't drag this issue any further. Ber31 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I didn't want to. I was very polite but you accused me of making false accusations. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Accusing me of arrogance and of being a liar is pretty impolite. It's also a diversion from the issue at hand. The real problem, in my view, is encapsulated in arguments like this: Auditing students and exchange students are not included for similar reason. They are not officially enrolled. This is fact, not made up by us. Even accepting that fact as established, the list is still making a decision on top of it. Why draw the dividing line at "officially enrolled"? Why does getting a publication out of a summer project override the lack of official enrollment? None of that is Wikipedia's judgment call to make. The underlying facts aren't in dispute; using them to arrive at a decision is. Prior discussions at the Talk page don't override that basic concern. It's like arguing about whether the Saturday morning Star Trek cartoon is canon: you can put as much energy as you want into whether the line should be drawn here or there, but Wikipedia isn't the place to be drawing the line at all. XOR'easter (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                            • We have a clear guideline which states that "Wikipedia supports categorizing People by educational institution...". We have millions of biographies and most of them do this with alumni categories without any inline citations. Naturally there will be corner cases but these are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This is not what is meant by OR. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Andrew - this guideline is for categories and not lists. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Biographical categories of that sort provide raw facts. That's typically unproblematic, apart from edge cases. This is doing something different, making judgment calls based on the facts in a way that would be suited to an independent project (which could, moreover, better provide attribution for the creative effort required). XOR'easter (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • @Vladimir.copic:, the editor in question voted "keep". WP:NPA therefore doesn't apply. Reyk YO! 17:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I agree with Andrew. Academia and higher education system has very clear and universally accepted definitions of basic categorizations. Again, we are not inventing the rules. We are simply explaining them to the public in an unbiased way. The so-called "decision making" in this list is not deciding whether certain group of people are academic affiliations, but explaining the established facts to the public. As for your question "Why does getting a publication out of a summer project override the lack of official enrollment?" This is simply untrue (and I believe you concern about the "REU"). We never left out this category by decision. If you read the article carefully, we already explained that "summer visitors are generally excluded from the list unless summer work yielded significant end products such as research publication". This is perfectly in line with what I said above about summer school (facts, not our decisions), and it provides yet another example of not reading the article carefully before making some wild accusation here. Minimumbias (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Davidson: Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Your comments are logical! Ber31 (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NLIST. The Nobel Prize organization itself has a list of "Nobel Laureates and research affiliations" (universities, research institutions or companies). Also universities proudly list their laureates: Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, etc. etc. So no SYNTH. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Directly carrying over the contents of those lists would probably not be WP:SYNTH. The concern raised in the nomination and the various "delete" !votes is that this list does something else, indeed something that required more work, but which by the same token is not kosher for this particular website with its particular policies. XOR'easter (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every single one of those sources you cited actually conflicts with the article. Those sources you cited all show a different number of Nobel laureates than the List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation does, and in fact the list explicitly disputes the information from those sources you cited. OCNative (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is yet another example of not reading the article carefully and making wild accusations here. The universities practice different counting strategy based on subjective criteria for including Nobel laureates. But we, in Wikipedia, does not do that because we do not conduct original research. That is why we plainly state the alma mater and the working places of the Nobel laureates, without counting them using a particular set of criteria. Finally, as I have stated above, Cambridge, MIT, UChicago and others have, over the years, alligned their counting strategies like ours. In particular, Cambridge has exactly the same number as ours [20]. Please do not make false claims any further. Minimumbias (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Other institutions made their subjective choices, and now they've adopted yours. That's really the long and short of it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • We cannot control the behavior of other institutions. We only follow the guidelines like neutrality here in Wikipedia. We choose to stay neutral. As I explained below, making a choice does not always mean subjectivity. Wikipedia chooses to stay neutral, and this is also a choice. But it is good to see that some other institutions have recognized the value of our list. Minimumbias (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the best lists on Wikipedia. All the entries on the list are supported by at least one reliable source, so there is no violation of WP:OR. This list is quite sophisticated and it will take time for a new editor to fully comprehend it. The criteria for what counts and what doesn't was the result of years of discussions, and careful analysis of many editors. See Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and its archives. User:Minimumbias, User:Elriana, User:Johnbod, User:Duncan.Hull, User:Uhooep, User:StanLeeP, myself and others participated in various discussions on those talk pages. There were many arguments, disaggrements between editors, confrontations, etc. The key decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus. It is the duty of every editor to respect Wikipedia:Consensus. In the end, the criteria for the list emerged out of many careful discussions between different editors over the years. If any editor has a problem with the criteria, please start a discussion on Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Healthy discussions and exchange of ideas results in better quality articles. This list links Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because the criteria for the list are made in such a way that they don't violate those policies! Let me explain in detail and give some examples. This list considers Nobel laureates as equal individuals and does not consider their various prize shares. For instance, the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020 was awarded one-half to Roger Penrose "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity", and the other half jointly to Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez "for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the centre of our galaxy."[21] Thus, Penrose got 1/2, Genzel got 1/4, and Ghez got 1/4 of the Nobel prize. However, this list considers Penrose, Genzel, and Ghez as equal individuals and does not consider their various prize shares. This rule shuts the door for any type of bias or subjective interpretations. Let me give another example. Should "short term academic staff" be counted 10% or 20% of a "long term academic staff"? No. This list considers long-term academic staff and short-term academic staff as equal. Because of Wikipedia policies on no original research and neutrality, it is not possible on Wikipedia to assign various weights to different types of affiliations. The criteria for the list are robust. Because of the sophistication of the list, it requires careful reading and analysis to fully grasp the essence of the list. Ber31 (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is also a forum for arriving at consensus. For good or for ill, it can open up a topic to people who hadn't participated before. Giving equal weight to co-laureates who received unequal shares is just as subjective a choice as weighting them by the share they received. It's a different choice, potentially more justifiable, but it's still a choice. (In statistics, assuming a flat prior is still assuming a prior.) Honestly, I'd agree that the list is a sophisticated effort. That's why it doesn't belong here. It's a research project in its own right. It's more like the Mathematics Genealogy trees than something Wikipedia should be hosting. People should be getting coauthor credit for it. XOR'easter (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To say it another way: the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences decided to give out unequal shares. (Another example that springs to mind is from 2005, when the Physics prize was also split into a half and two quarters [22].) How is it unbiased for us to omit basic information from the original source? Our being egalitarian when the original was not is itself a kind of bias. XOR'easter (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • XOR'easter: We have not omitted basic information from the original source. Take the examples of Andrea Ghez and Phillip A. Sharp. Andrea Ghez received 1/4 of the Nobel Prize in physics in 2020. Phillip A. Sharp received 1/2 of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1993. Both are listed as MIT affiliated Nobel laureates. Imagine what will happen if the MIT count were to consider various Nobel prize shares, and it were to treat Ghez and Sharp differently because of the fact that Ghez received 1/4 of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and Sharp received 1/2 of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine? Such modification of the rule will open up all kinds of subjective interpretations and may lead to nonsensical results, which will inevitability lead to the violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For instance, if various prize shares were to be considered, a university may end up having affiliations with 41.4 Nobel prizes! That would be catastrophic, and violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. How can such scenarios be avoided? Is Andrea Ghez a Nobel laureate? Yes, she is. Is Phillip Sharp a Nobel laureate? Yes, he is. That information is the most important to this list. We are not denying that Ghez received 1/4 of the Nobel Prize and Sharp received 1/2 of the Nobel Prize. By considering Ghez and Sharp as equal individuals and not considering (not denying!) their various prize shares, we are making sure that there is no room for any type of bias or subjective interpretations or nonsensical results. In that way, we can make sure that there is no violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This is the best that we can do on Wikipedia. To fully grasp List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, an editor has to get involved in serious analysis. The rules of the page are set-up in such a way that there is no violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Ber31 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I totally agree with Ber31, who has been engaging in detailed discussion with me over the years. If there is anything I would like to add, it'd be to emphasize that the "sophistication" in this list is not about our original research or subjective decision making, but about how NOT to violate the rules of Wikipedia while presenting a truthful picture of the academia to the public. I have stated this point above. But it seems that some editors who wish to delete this page are confused about it. In other words, we are "researching on" how NOT to add subjective views and how to best follow the Wiki guidelines, instead of researching on subjective inclusion/classification criteria for the laureates. For example, this is a list of Nobel laureates, not about prize shares, as explained by Ber31. So we are just doing that. We are not adopting a particular interpretation or inventing new rules to classify these Nobel laureates. We are simply stating the basic, universally accepted facts: their alma mater and the places they work. That's it. Minimumbias (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This statement is indicative of the fact that it is WP:SYNTH: "To fully grasp List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, an editor has to get involved in serious analysis." OCNative (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not. I've emphasized already above, just in case editors like you who would get confused. I believe what Ber 31 means is: To fully grasp that the content of the list (e.g., no subjective criteria) and that our work does not violate Wikipedia policies, an editor has to get involved in serious analysis instead of just looking at some tables in the article and making unjustified accusations here. Minimumbias (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I completely agree with Minimumbias. Some editors are making totally false and unjustified accusations here. Ber31 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've chosen one particular interpretation and deemed it "objective" while designating alternatives "nonsensical". That's a fine project for your own website, or even a journal article (in sociology of science, bibliometry, etc.), but it's not actually compliant with Wikipedia policy. "Bias" on Wikipedia isn't about treating all individual people equally, it's about fairly reproducing the facts in the available sources. Perhaps saying that graduating from a place counts equally with short-term employment there, or that short-term employment should be regarded the same as long-term, but that's a judgment about the objective facts, not an objective fact itself. It's a judgment that, for example, an informal relationship that lasted for a long time counts for less than a more "official" but shorter one. The datum that so-and-so received a Guggenheim fellowship is a fact, and what the Guggenheim entails is documentable, but adding together fact 1 and fact 2 to get the conclusion that the fellowship isn't "employment-level duty" and so should not count here, that's a layer on top of the facts. The rules of this list are set up to mandate Original Research. XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • XOR'easter: You are still not getting it, are you? Let me explain to you what happens if various Nobel prize shares were to be considered. Let us say that "AB University" (imaginary university) has affiliations with 5 people who received 1/1 of the Nobel prize, 4 people who received 1/3 of the Nobel prize, and 2 people who received 1/2 of the Nobel prize. If various prize shares were taken into account, "AB University" will have 5*1+4*(1/3)+2*(1/2)=7.33 Nobel prizes! Yes, 7.33 Nobel prizes. That would be nonsensical. Got it? Since this is a list of Nobel laureates, not about prize shares, every individual Nobel laureate is treated equally. That rule ensures that Wikipedia policies on "no original research" and "neutrality" are not violated. An affiliation is an affiliation. For instance, Andrea Ghez and Einstein are both Caltech affiliated Nobel laureates. Ghez has a PhD from Caltech and Einstein was a short term visitor at Caltech during the 1930s. There is a source for Ghez[23] and also for Einstein[24]. Wikipedia:No original research is used to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. As long as a reliable source conforming affiliation is presented, there is no violation of WP:OR. The list has at least one reliable source conforming affiliation for every entry on the list, so there is no problem with WP:OR and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Ber31 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think you mean Caltech and not CalTech. Gah4 (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Gah4: You are right! It should have been Caltech. Thanks! :) Ber31 (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very well referenced and important list. Uhooep (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the reasons by User:Ber31. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This talk I think really sums up the WP:OR criteria for inclusion in this list. A source claims some kind institutional of affiliation with a Nobel laureate but an editor rejects the edit request for inclusion of this institution due to their own criteria - denying the source. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it does not. The Harvard's news source does not mention the word "affiliation" once. If you are familiar with how academia works, you'd know that fellowship is usually an award, not an affiliation. Fellowship programs usually invite a certain group of people of their interest to stay at some universities for a period of time, for communications, public talks or public lectures etc. The programs do not automatically establish any academic affiliation, unless the fellows teach or research at the universities they stay. Universities generally have an internal system that classify their employees, and only a few visiting scholars every year who carry employment-level duties are counted because they get paid with salary. This is what we have been trying to explain above in the page. It surprises me that people would try to argue something that they may not be familiar with. Minimumbias (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me make this easy for some editors to understand: imagine today that some citizens of country A go visit country B, and they stay in country B for some time either for travelling, business or for visiting some friends etc, but without employment, then it is common sense that these people are not affiliated with country B. They are just tourists or visitors. This type of visiting behavior at university level include most award-based visitors, exchange students, most summer visitors, and so on. However, if the citizens in country A get employed in country B, then they become affiliated with country B in some way and have to pay taxes. This is what we mean by employ-level duties of visitors at another university. Editors like Ber31 and I have been discussing in Talk Page for years on how to make this clear to the public, without violating the Wiki policies. Hence, stating "common sense" of academia is not making rules or creating subjective criteria, especially when we provided so many references in the article to prove our points. Minimumbias (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are editors expected to verify an individual's duties, remuneration and contractual conditions? It is quite obvious that the meaning and expectations of fellowships vary greatly. Even within institutions this varies greatly and things like by-line affiliation are often at the discretion of authors per the content of a publication. This gets into pretty murky waters - especially when it comes to BLPs. At my institution (anecdotal so feel free to throw out) some fellows have institutional email addresses, offices, teaching duties while others never step on campus. In the particular case of Maria Ressa's fellowship, the fellow is expected to write a research paper so surely this fits your criteria. Side-note: This page also contradicts WP policy by saying a CV is a reliable source! Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The case of Maria Ressa's fellowship can be discussed on Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. The page List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation doesn't claim that a CV is a reliable source. In case of the CVs of professors from major research universities, they tend to be reliable. Ber31 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The page List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation doesn't claim that a CV is a reliable source. Yes, it does; the WP:LEAD says reliable sources such as their curriculum vitae. TompaDompa (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why are you looking at only one line and ignoring the rest? List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation doesn't claim that all CVs are reliable. In case of the CVs of professors from major research universities, they are reliable. The CVs of Nobel laureates that are published by major research universities are reliable sources. Ber31 (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Vladimir.copic: no, you have misunderstood and mistakenly enlarged the "visiting fellowship" program we have been discussing, which was originally derived from your concern over Maria Ressa's possible affiliation with Harvard. I've responded in the Nobel's Talk Page for your specific concerns. Here, I'll make some further explanations. The fellowship programs we were discussing is something like [25] and the short-term fellow [26]. These, as I said above, are awards/honors visiting positions without academic affiliations - they are like tourists in another countries. You mistakenly enlarged the visiting fellowship we were talking about to include Fellow of all types. Of course, for example, grad students and postdocs sometimes receive research stipends under certain "fellowship", but this has nothing to do with the visiting fellowship I described above. On the other hand, as for your other concern that how are we going to verify which fellowship is which, I tell you that editors like Ber31 and I have been working diligently in the past few years and have clarified which fellowships are academic affiliations and which are not, based on solid & reliable sources from the university's websites and fellowship organizations. I explained them in the notes for each related university. So, now you are basically asking me a question that we have answered/completed. Please read the article more carefully and try to respect our work before making further judgement. You are always welcome to join the Nobel's Talk Page to discuss the concerns. But these argument do not support the "deletion" in this page at all.--Minimumbias (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not exactly a secret that universities have an interest in claiming Nobel laureates as "theirs"; it's as a matter of prestige to them. The problem, of course, is that Nobel Prizes are not awarded to universities (or countries, for that matter – see List of Nobel laureates by country) but to individuals; this is not like the Olympics where the athletes formally represent their countries. Assigning universities to Nobel Prizes/laureates (or vice versa, whichever way you want to look at it) is therefore necessarily done post hoc, as that's simply not how the Nobel Prizes work. This introduces subjectivity into the matter, because there is more than one way it could be done; there is no canonical list of which universities get to take credit for which Nobel Prizes (because they don't get to take credit – the Nobel Prizes are not awarded to them but to individuals). The way it's done on this list is one conceivable way of doing it, but it's not the way. This is amply demonstrated by the universities themselves coming up with different figures than we do.
    This list is not a neutral and unbiased way of presenting this information; we have in effect decided that this is the way this unofficial "contest" between universities should be "scored". That is an active choice that has been made, and it's not the only possible one that could have been made. While it may be objectively correct that these are the figures one would come up with using these criteria, the criteria themselves are not objectively the correct ones. The fact that the affiliations are sourced individually and then summed up to arrive at the figures for each university is rather a red flag in this regard; if the criteria we are using were universally – or even just generally – accepted to be the correct ones that should be used, there would almost certainly be no need to do that since we could just cite other sources' lists and figures.
    I mentioned before that the universities themselves come up with different figures, but for a concrete example of another "objective" way of assigning universities to each Nobel Prize, we could do it the same way the official Nobel Prize website does it: use the universities, research institutions or companies Nobel Prize laureates were affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement. That way, the figure for Caltech would for instance be 20 laureates rather than 78, and Einstein would not be among them.
    I don't know that this is salvageable, frankly. It's plain to see that a lot of effort went into constructing this list, but it doesn't seem to be compliant with our WP:Core content policies and it's not self-evident to me that it can be made compliant with them. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, of course, but I'm leaning heavily towards this needing to be deleted. TompaDompa (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • TompaDompa: We are not trying to prove that one university is better than some another university. We are only stating facts. You are using your own subjective criteria. You are only making a personal judgement. Every editor has to respect Wikipedia:Consensus. Nobel Laureates and research affiliations page at NobelPrize.org only shows the universities, research institutions or companies Nobel prize winners were affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement, and it only shows prize winners in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Economics; it doesn't show the prize winners in Literature or Peace. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is much more comprehensive. Ber31 (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say that We are only stating facts., and Minimumbias said something similar previously, but you don't seem to appreciate what I was trying to get at in my second paragraph above: there is an active choice going into deciding which facts to present and how (which is a point XOR'easter has also made previously in the discussion). That's not only stating facts.
        I'll demonstrate with an example: If I were to say "I joined Wikipedia before you and Minimumbias and have made more edits than the two of you combined", I'm sure you would agree that while that would be stating facts, it wouldn't be only stating facts. The selection of facts we choose to present reflects a belief that those are the relevant facts (and for the record, tenure on Wikipedia and number of edits are not relevant here).
        I know that the list the official Nobel Prize website has is very different from this one, but that's actually my point: they have chosen to maintain and present a list like that, not a list like this. The differences you note reflect their assessment that (1) university affiliation is not relevant for the Literature and Peace Prizes and (2) only the affiliation at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement is relevant, not affiliations earlier or later in the laureate's career.
        Now I want to be clear: The problem is not that there has been an active choice – that's unavoidable. The problem is that we are not supposed to be the ones making that active choice, WP:Reliable sources are. We are supposed to follow the sources, and that means using their criteria, not ours. Of course, that assumes that there actually are some generally-accepted criteria we can use. TompaDompa (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most often the prize is awarded for work done somewhere else. That someone attended a school or did research at one are facts, and likely listed in many sources. In any article, someone has to decide which facts to include and which ones not. That doesn't seem to be a problem in all those articles. Not so long ago, I found that aluminium oxide does not give dielectric strength. It seems that someone decided that fact wasn't needed. Other than it is probably hard to find a source, we could indicate the favorite restaurant, or even all the restaurants that someone ate at. But I suppose that isn't so interesting, so they leave out that one. I suspect that one can argue against the summary tables at the top based on adding up the number of laureates with connections to each school. Does it imply that schools with more are better? Some might say so, but I am not so convinced. Larger schools are more likely to have someone, so you should divide by the number of (whichever) at that school. But okay, argue against the summary tables. Gah4 (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not unusual for there to be disagreement about rankings and ratings. For example, boxing is complicated because there are multiple weight classes and awarding bodies. So, what we do is show all of the respectable possibilities – see Boxing pound for pound rankings and List of current world boxing champions. If there are significantly different ways to score and calculate the Nobel lists then we can likewise show those too. Such expansion and improvement would not be done by deleting the 6,684 previous versions of the list. Our policy, WP:PRESERVE, is to keep the previous history and build on it. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • TompaDompa: You have failed to understand what List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is all about. I understand that the Nobel Prizes are not awarded to universities, but to individuals. The list is about the alma mater of Nobel laureates and the universities they work. The official academic affiliations fall into three categories: 1) Alumni (graduates and attendees), 2) Long-term academic staff, and 3) Short-term academic staff. Further explanations are provided in the page. The criteria for the list are robust. TompaDompa, you have never contributed to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and never participated in any discussion on the talk page of the list. I am assuming that you want to contribute meaningfully to the list, but for that you have to make some effort to learn about the list. Nobel Laureates and research affiliations page is a list on Nobel laureates and their affiliated institutions published by NobelPrize.org. NobelPrize.org created that list using their own criteria. Harvard University also has a list of Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard.[27] They have their own criteria. They have only included long term faculty in their list. The US DOE also has a list of Nobel laureates affiliated with DOE.[28] They have their own criteria. Thus, different institutions has a different way of counting Nobel laureates. Here on Wikipedia, there is List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. The criteria for the list emerged out of many careful discussions between different editors over the years. Every editor must have a good understanding of Wikipedia:Consensus. Decisions are primarily made by consensus, and this method is considered as the best way to settle disputes on Wikipedia. Building consensus is a difficult and long process. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, there is a discussion on the talk page. Different points of views are presented, and there has to be some short of compromise. See the talk page of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and archives. Different types of discussions on various aspects of the list has been discussed on those talk pages for many years. If new editors want to make good contributions to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, they must be familiar with those discussions. Only after that, they will understand how difficult it has been to achieve various compromises. If you or anyone else think that there is a problem with the list, please start a discussion on the talk page. The rules of the list are set-up in such a way that there is no violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please study my arguments above. There is no problem with Wikipedia:Verifiability because for every entry, there is at least one reliable source. Thus, your claim that the list "doesn't seem to be compliant with our Wikipedia:Core content policies" is totally wrong. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is fully compliant with Wikipedia:Core content policies. The active choices are made by the reliable sources. For instance, Einstein isn't included in the Caltech's Nobel count in the Nobel Laureates and research affiliations page of NobelPrize.org because he wasn't affiliated with Caltech at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement. He is included in the Nobel count of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation because he was a visiting professor at Caltech during the 1930s. Here are the reliable sources to support the claim that Einstein was a visiting professor at Caltech during the 1930s:[29][30]. The list is all about what the reliable sources say. There is no room for subjective criteria. Without the support of at least a reliable source, a laureate will not be included in the count. Ber31 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand. This list looks at the intersection of Nobel laureates and universities. There are other lists that also look at that intersection. This list does it in a specific way: it considers affiliations prior to the Nobel Prize, concurrently to it, and after it. This list considers three different categories of affiliations: alumni, long-term academic staff, and long-term academic staff (the criteria for which are outlined in the WP:LEAD).
        Other lists look at the intersection in their own ways. The list maintained by the official Nobel Prize website, for instance, only considers affiliation at the time the Nobel Prize was announced, not affiliations before or after. Different universities adopt different criteria—from generous to conservative—for claiming Nobel affiliates (to quote the WP:LEAD of the article directly).
        This list uses criteria decided upon by Wikipedia editors through discussion on the talk page. It's not the same as those other lists that use their own sets of criteria. It's different. Novel. Original, even. And that's the problem.
        Do we have a common understanding of what I wrote above from This list looks at the intersection [...] to [...] criteria decided upon by Wikipedia editors through discussion on the talk page., or do you think I got it wrong somehow?
        You are correct in assuming that I want to contribute meaningfully with regards to this list, but that doesn't necessarily mean adding to it. If I understand our respective positions correctly, you see the way the criteria were chosen through discussion and compromises as a good thing, reflecting thorough consensus-building. I, on the other hand, see it as compounding WP:Original research. Whether the criteria are robust is beside the point. Whether we think the criteria make sense is beside the point. What matters is what criteria WP:Reliable sources use. WP:No original research does not only apply to the application of the criteria, but also to the selection of the criteria. If there is a set of criteria that is generally used by WP:Reliable sources, that's the set of criteria we should use whether we agree that it's the best one or not. If there is no such set of criteria, we mustn't make one up for ourselves. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to add one more point, besides all the excellent points explained by Gah4, Andrew Davidson, and Ber31 above. Regarding making choices, let me point it out outright that to stay neutral and objective is also a choice of Wikipedia. Making a choice is not always an indication of subjectivity. For example, I can choose to believe 1+1 =2, does not make me subjective? The notion of "subjectivity" is relative, and this argument cannot be used to argue that list Nobel list should be deleted. Our choice in this Nobel's page, quite simply, is to follow the neutrality principle like Wikipedia, and to list out verifiable facts: the alma mater and the working places of Nobel laureates. We do not add anything else into it. Different universities practice different rules of counting, based on subjective criteria. But we do not do that. This is our choice, to stay neutral. What is the matter with that? Most importantly, many evidences have been listed by several editors to prove that this list has important value, so it must be kept. Minimumbias (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:No original research does not only apply to the application of the criteria, but also to the selection of the criteria. Do the criteria used on this article reflect the consensus among WP:Reliable sources about which set of criteria to use? TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • By repeatedly saying "criteria", you first have to understand that our only "criteria" is the universally accepted definitions of "academic affiliations". I have explained it above so many times above to various editors. This is our choice to stay neutral, and has been a long-established consensus among editors who contributed to this article. Let me emphasize, academic affiliation is NOT invented by us: we are simply explaining it to the public, with reliable sources. However, cutting off certain affiliations, assigning different weights to different academic affiliations, or any other types of subjective criteria, is a practice of counting adopted by certain universities themselves, not us. In a word, if there are 5 people affiliated, what we are doing is saying there are 5 people affiliated, but some universities would say there only 4, 3, 2, 1. Minimumbias (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, so the answer is "no" then. Because the universities do not apply the universally accepted definitions of "academic affiliations" in this context. That's the problem. We're taking a different approach. TompaDompa (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know what you meant by "answer". I was not answering your question. I was explaining to you that academic affiliation is not a selection, or a selection of criteria. It is a fact, or common sense in academic. And here in Wikipedia, we choose to just state the academic affiliations of Nobel laureates (e.g., a professor at a university counts +1), instead of adding in any further subjective criteria. And your logic is that we are still making a "selection of criteria", which we are not, because academic affiliation is not a selection of criteria. We choose to stay neutral, just like Wikipedia chooses to stay neutral. This choice does not mean subjectivity or "selection of criteria". That's what I tried to explain. Minimumbias (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps it's helpful to add a few points, after seeing your replies to Ber31 above. The discussions on Talk Page over the years were not our original research on subjective criteria or creating a selection of criteria. I've explained it above to other editors several times, and I assumed you did not read it carefully. Anyway. The discussions on the Talk Page was on how NOT to violate the rules of Wikipedia while presenting a truthful picture of the academia. For example, I've explained above about the notion of "fellowship". Some fellowships at certain universities may be academic affiliations (employment), but others are not (pure visitors for public talks or meetings). Our discussion on Talk Page was thus to determine which type of fellowship a Nobel laureate was having, thus seeing whether there is academic affiliation. We are NOT including or excluding a person based on our "selected criteria". Minimumbias (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • (edit conflict) The answer to the question Do the criteria used on this article reflect the consensus among WP:Reliable sources about which set of criteria to use? is no. Listing Nobel laureates by academic affiliation is actively choosing a set of criteria to use. We could, for instance, have only included alumni and called the list "List of Nobel laureates by alma mater" instead. That would also have been actively choosing a set of criteria. It would have been a different set of criteria, but it would have been neither more nor less "neutral" or "subjective". So the question is: Is there a consensus among WP:Reliable sources to list Nobel laureates by university affiliation defined this particular way, as opposed to listing them by a modification of this definition of "university affiliation" or by some other parameter such as alma mater? And from what you're telling me, the answer is no – there is not a consensus among WP:Reliable sources that this is how to list Nobel laureates. You're applying the concept of "university affiliation" (defined this particular way) in a context where reliable sources apparently do not. That's the problem. TompaDompa (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I disagree. 1) Choosing a topic to write is different from selecting some criteria. You seemed to have mixed the idea of "selecting some criteria to count Nobel laureates" with "plainly stating the academic affiliations of the Nobel laureates". The former is a subjective research, while the latter is a plain list - just like listing the top 10 deadliest natural disasters [31], or listing the five fastest 100m records [32]. 2) And, there is nothing "subjective" about our list, because academic affiliation is an universal term. We are just doing what our topic is stating: simply listing the Nobel laureates' university affiliations without adding in any further criteria. 3) Finding a consensus in sources to count Nobel laureates in a particular way (with some agreed selected criteria) is not reality, at least for now, because different universities may do it differently. That does not conflict with our topic, because we are not listing Nobel laureates under some agreed selected criteria. We are just stating facts. I don't see any problem. Minimumbias (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No. "Choosing a topic to write" means defining a scope. That entails selecting criteria, even if you don't consciously think of it that way. The scope of this list is the intersection or cross-categorization of Nobel laureates and the concept of university affiliation (defined this particular way).
                    There are two ways of looking at the construction of this list. The starting point is in either case a set of individuals: Nobel laureates. To this set of individuals, we either apply a parameter (university affiliation, defined in this particular way) or a set of criteria (the set of criteria used to define "university affiliation"). They are equivalent, it's just a question of how you prefer looking at it.
                    Let's start with the parameter perspective. What you call plainly stating the academic affiliations of the Nobel laureates is listing a (well-defined) set of individuals by a parameter you have chosen (university affiliation). And here's the thing: if nobody else has done that before (because they have used some slight variation of the parameter you're using, in this case), you're producing novel content. It would be the same thing if you were listing them by handedness or which day of the week they were born (List of Nobel laureates born on a Wednesday and so on). Do WP:Reliable sources list Nobel laureates by university affiliation (defined this particular way)? For the examples of lists by parameters you gave, the corresponding question (i.e. "Do WP:Reliable sources list 100-meter dashes by shortest time?") can be answered in the affirmative. Do you see the difference? Don't get hung up on subjectivity or the lack thereof—focus on novelty.
                    Now let's take the criteria perspective. Assuming for the sake of argument that these are indeed the correct set of criteria for defining university affiliation, you're extrapolating from this being the appropriate set of criteria to use in one context (university affiliation) to it also being the appropriate set of criteria to use in another context (assigning Nobel laureates to universities or vice versa, however you want to look at it). That extrapolation is done in spite of WP:Reliable sources not using this set of criteria in the latter context, as you yourself have noted.
                    Finding a consensus in sources to count Nobel laureates in a particular way (with some agreed selected criteria) is not reality, at least for now, because different universities may do it differently. That's precisely my point. There is no consensus among WP:Reliable sources about how to list Nobel laureates by university. The very scope of this list lacks consensus external to Wikipedia that it is in fact a meaningful scope. TompaDompa (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Absolutely wrong. Unfortunately, I didn't even have to look through everything you just wrote, but only had to pick the first two paragraphs or so, because your later conclusions are based on the first two paragraphs (I eventually chose to read over what you wrote, out of respect, by the way). 1) Your first sentence already contains a fatal flaw: "Choosing a topic to write means defining a scope. That entails selecting criteria, even if you don't consciously think of it that way." If you kept assuming something that we did not do, and kept misinterpreting our explanations in your own language, then there is no way we can continue this conversion. The bottom line is, you have to prove that we actually selected certain "criteria" by simply stating "academic affiliations", which I have repeatedly said to contain no criteria, but universally defined concepts. In your language, the so-called parameter space we are using is the neutral, universally defined space containing "academic affiliations". You kept calling it some set of criteria, as if there is an even larger space of that contains this parameter space as a subspace, and we are able to switch other subspaces if we want (and therefore, meaning that we select certain preferred subspace). But this is absolutely wrong. When we chose to be neutral and follow the Wiki guidelines, we already put ourselves in the most neutral way possible, or in your language, the largest parameter space possible. Period. 2) And, if you thinking that we can write a list of Nobel prize winners according to some birthdays or something else, rather than academic affiliations, then you are playing this game of "straw man". Because you implicitly switch to a different topic by calling it a different set of criteria. This is like switching from a parameter space of biology to a space of physics. We are not playing a game called "inclusion" of Nobel laureates into a list with a set of criteria. We are stating the basic facts of Nobel laureates in a list, instead of selecting certain laureates using a set of criteria. 3) Again, stating that no consensus on how to count Nobel laureates (with some agreed criteria) has nothing to do with us. I've stated it repeatedly. We are not counting Nobel laureates. We are stating the universal facts, in a list. All of the arguments you have used is based on your own understanding that an original set of criteria is an absolute must for creating a list for Nobel laureates, which is untrue. Minimumbias (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The bottom line is, you have to prove that we actually selected certain "criteria" by simply stating "academic affiliations", which I have repeatedly said to contain no criteria, but universally defined concepts. "University affiliation", for the purposes of this list, is defined as belonging to one of three categories: alumni (graduates and attendees), long-term staff, or short-term staff. Those are the criteria for counting as having an academic affiliation to the university. The criteria for belonging to each of those categories are further outlined in the WP:LEAD: Graduates are defined as those who hold Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorate or equivalent degrees from a university, while attendees are those who formally enrolled in degree programs at a university but did not complete the programs; thus, honorary degrees, posthumous degrees, summer attendees, exchange students and auditing students are excluded. The category of "Long-term academic staff" consists of tenure or tenure-track and equivalent academic positions, while that of "Short-term academic staff" consists of lecturers (without tenure), postdoctoral researchers, visiting professors or scholars (visitors), and equivalent academic positions. This is a set of criteria. That you refer to them with a collective term—university/academic affiliation—does not change that. Whether they are universally accepted as the criteria to use for defining that collective term also doesn't really matter—they are still a set of criteria. And the thing is, they are evidently not universally accepted as such, by your own admission: However, cutting off certain affiliations, assigning different weights to different academic affiliations, or any other types of subjective criteria, is a practice of counting adopted by certain universities themselves, not us. In a word, if there are 5 people affiliated, what we are doing is saying there are 5 people affiliated, but some universities would say there only 4, 3, 2, 1. What you're saying is, essentially, that they're doing it wrong while we're doing it right. That's your assessment. But we don't go by your assessment of how it should be done, or by mine, or by any other editor's – we go by how WP:Reliable sources do it.
                        At the end of the day, the problem is that this is novel content. You keep saying that we're just stating facts, but if no WP:Reliable sources have stated the facts in this way, you're still producing novel content. Wikipedia is not supposed to create novel content.
                        We are not counting Nobel laureates. That's flat-out wrong, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The universities are listed by number of affiliated Nobel laureates. This is, really, more of a list of universities by affiliated Nobel laureates. How on Earth is that not counting? TompaDompa (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • TompaDompa: "In a word, if there are 5 people affiliated, what we are doing is saying there are 5 people affiliated, but some universities would say there only 4, 3, 2, 1." That is because different universities have a different ways of counting Nobel laureates. We have never said that "they're doing it wrong". They have a right to use whatever criteria they want. Take the case of Harvard University. They have an official Nobel count:[33] They have only included long-term staff. They haven't counted alumni who haven't worked as long term faculty at Harvard. In Harvard's Nobel Laureates in Physics[34], they haven't counted Adam Riess, a Nobel Laureate and Harvard graduate. However, Harvard has acknowledged elsewhere that Riess was a Harvard graduate. Here is a Harvard source: Adam Riess, Nobel Laureate and ’96 alumnus of the Harvard Astronomy Department, named a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins. Any reliable source that points out that a Nobel laureate has graduated or worked as a short-term staff at Harvard will be acceptable for List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. The list is all about what the reliable sources say and there is no room for subjective criteria. What is acceptable or not is determined by reliable sources. Feelings or emotions of editors play zero role in the final decision. Reliable sources dictate who is counted and who is not! Ber31 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Editors are not counting Nobel laureates on the basis of their feelings or emotions. On List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, reliable sources are counting Nobel laureates! Ber31 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • "In a word, if there are 5 people affiliated, what we are doing is saying there are 5 people affiliated, but some universities would say there only 4, 3, 2, 1." That is because different universities have a different ways of counting Nobel laureates. Yes, that's the problem. Why are we not using their methods? Why are we using a different method that is not used by the sources?
                            You say that there is no room for subjective criteria as if the choice of criteria is not itself subjective. What makes including alumni, as we do, any less subjective than only including long-term staff, as Harvard does? The answer is of course that it's not—neither option is any more or less subjective than the other. The problem is that we're using a method that is at odds with the methods used by the sources.
                            On List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, reliable sources are counting Nobel laureates! If reliable sources are counting the laureates, why do our counts differ from those sources'? Because what's actually happening is that editors are using the sources to determine whether laureates should count according to the method used by this list (which is different from the methods used by the sources) and then tallying them to arrive at the number of laureates for each university. That's WP:Original research.
                            I'll quote PresN from their closing comment at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania/archive1 (which was just delisted): the entire subject is questionable. "Associated with" is suspect, as UPenn had nothing to do with the prize itself, and in most cases nothing to do with the research beyond being somewhere that the researcher once went to school. It's an arbitrary slicing of the data to give unearned prestige to a school. Those concerns apply equally well here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                            • TompaDompa: right after I typed in my words above, I already foresaw you may type in these arguments. So I did not rush to change my words above to remove any possible ambiguity, just to give us this opportunity to point out your misunderstandings once and for all. 1) First of all, when I said "we are not counting Nobel laureates", note that I said it right after "how to count Nobel laureates (with some agreed criteria) has nothing to do with us". I thought you would understand the sentences completely, but you didn't. I was using your definition of "counting" and refuting it above, because in your definition of "counting/including" Nobel laureates, there is always some agreed criteria made by us. So I was telling you that we were not doing this type of counting in the list, but you misunderstood it as I was denying some universal counting facts like 1+1=2, which is perfectly allowed in Wiki because it is common sense. 2) If you continue with your logic and arguing that "common sense" should also be defined with reliable sources, then saying any random common sense like 2343+1231=3574 or a university has professors may be viewed as original research, unless proved explicitly by external reliable sources. Do you want me to cite my calculator then? Wikipedia is written in language, and it takes certain level of common sense to understand it (e.g., common understanding of English). Moreover, some of the common sense are for specialists, not for laymen. Otherwise, you can go to any page like [35] or [36] and ask them to be deleted, because these pages use some "common sense" known to professionals without having proper citations in laymen language sentence by sentence to teach you how to understand the professional knowledge. And in this way, you are bascially asking Wikipedia to cancel itself. In our list, we are simply explaining the "academic affiliations", the common sense of academia & university, to the public in an unbiased way. But you misunderstood it as some criteria invented by us. In reality, these are just the "birth certificates" and the "working permits" of Nobel laureates in academia (i.e., common senses in academia). 3) Finally, words like "criteria" are meaningful only when there is behavior like selection or classification. You think we have criteria, implicitly assuming we are doing selection or the type of "counting" you understand it, but we are not. Let me tell you what we do. For any given Nobel laureate, we looked for his/her career path since college, and objectively stated his/her academic affiliations within the relevant universities in the list. Where is the counting/inclusion/selection (based on a set of original criteria)? Again, the notion of "academic affiliations" are not invented by us, but are universally accepted definitions, like "birth certificate" and "working permits", and we are simply explaining them to the public in a truthful way. Minimumbias (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                              • TompaDompa, you are arguing as if the official Nobel count of Harvard is the only reliable source that can be used on Wikipedia to count the Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard. Such thinking is completely wrong. :) The official count of Harvard University (which lists only long-term staff at Harvard) doesn't include all the Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard. Did Harvard claim that Adam Riess, a Nobel Laureate and Harvard graduate (and someone who is excluded from Harvard's official Nobel count), is not affiliated with Harvard? No. Here is a Harvard University source: Adam Riess, Nobel Laureate and ’96 alumnus of the Harvard Astronomy Department, named a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins. The criteria used by this list is called "academic affiliations", which are universally defined terms: students, faculty, and short-term staff. Reliable sources include CVs of Nobel laureates (published by major universities), biographies of Nobel laureates at NobelPrize.org, and many others. Wikipedia:No original research is used to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. The list has at least one reliable source conforming affiliation for every entry on the list, so the list doesn't violate WP:OR or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Ber31 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                                • @Minimumbias: You're acting as if the purpose of this list is simply stating which universities each Nobel laureate is/was affiliated with, with the number of Nobel laureates for each university simply being an unintended but unavoidable side effect thereof. That's clearly untrue. If that were the case, the entries would be Nobel laureates, not universities. That is to say, you would go to Einstein's entry on the list and see the universities he was affiliated with, rather than going to Caltech's entry on the list and see the Nobel laureates that were/are affiliated with it.
                                  The reason that 1+1=2 and 2343+1231=3574 are allowed is that those are WP:Routine calculations. The criteria for being a routine calculation is that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
                                  In our list, we are simply explaining the "academic affiliations", the common sense of academia, to the public in an unbiased way. But you misunderstood it as some criteria invented by us. It doesn't matter if it was invented by you or not, what matters is that you're applying it in a new context where it has not been applied by reliable sources, thus producing novel content. The problem is that the content is novel. The reason the content is novel is that you're doing something the sources don't: you're listing Nobel laureates in a way that the sources aren't. You're presupposing that a list like this—which looks at Nobel laureates and their university affiliation by this exact definition—should exist. Where is the evidence that this list should exist? In other words, where are the sources that keep lists like this (not similar to this, like this)? XOR'easter got it precisely right when they said Taking a definition used for one purpose and deciding that it's the right definition to use for another is WP:SYNTH.
                                  For that matter, you say that this is the universally accepted definitions of "academic affiliations" and common sense of academia, but where are the sources supporting this? I put it to you that this assertion is false, that these are in fact not universally accepted definitions. I'll demonstrate this by way of example: Johns Hopkins claims 29 Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins whereas we list 39, and Cornell claims 50 Nobel Laureates Affiliated with Cornell University whereas we list 61. If it were truly universally accepted, those figures would be exact matches.
                                  @Ber31: you are arguing as if the official Nobel count of Harvard is the only reliable source that can be used on Wikipedia to count the Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard. No, actually. We could also use, say, the official Nobel Prize website's list. That would also give us a completely different figure than we have now, in fact an even lower figure than Harvard's own list gives. But we have to actually use a source, we can't just make it up ourselves.
                                  Wikipedia:No original research is used to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Correct, but incomplete. It also refers to material which can be derived from combinations of sources where that derivation has not been done by any sources. See WP:SYNTH, which says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.. For instance: combining one source which defines "university affiliation" (though I'll note that such a source does not seem to currently be cited on the list), another source that says person X is a Nobel laureate, and a third source such as person X's curriculum vitae which mentions university Y (in some specified capacity) to reach the conclusion "person X is a Nobel laureate affiliated with university Y" which is not stated by any of the sources. If you had instead cited a "list of Nobel laureates affiliated with university Y" that includes person X, it would not have been a problem. Nor would it have been a problem if you had cited a "list of universities that Nobel laureate X is affiliated with" that includes university Y. TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • TompaDompa: at this point, I don't believe you are ever able to distinguish "two topics" from "two criteria" anymore. The topic you are interested in is "how universities claim their Nobel laureates", in which case there are Harvard's criteria, Cambridge's criteria, Berkeley's criteria, MIT's criteria, etc. Note that this already refutes your own claim that by choosing a specific topic, one has to define a specific set of criteria, because we can have 100 different criteria under this same topic. On the other hand, the topic of this list is the academic biographical data (i.e., academic affiliations) of Nobel laureates, which has no subjective interpretation whatsoever, because academic affiliations are universally defined. This is like the birthplaces data of Nobel laureates, or age data of Nobel laureates. They are not certain criteria, but universally defined topics. You keep saying that we are writing for the former topic of how universities claim Nobel laureates, even citing the counting data from different universities to support your claim, while many editors above including myself have tried to tell you, in various ways, that we are writing for the latter topic. This means, in our topic, we are able to add the numbers as universal counting facts, which means when we see 1+2+3 people, we say 6. We do not claim laureates for the universities, ok? This is common sense, not subjective counting (it's good that you cite that Wiki policy to support this universal counting behavior). That is why our numbers are not the same as those universities' own counts, because we are generally doing two different things (two different topics, not two different criteria under the same topic). Some universities like Cambridge may be using the universally defined "academic affiliation" as their counting criteria, but others do not, ok? For example, some universities might think to claim a laureate as one of theirs, the laureate must be working in the university while receiving the award. This is their own choice not to use the universally defined "academic affiliation" as counting criteria, which does not mean they are denying the existence of "academic affiliation". How many times do I have to explain this to you? Finally, you say "a list of Nobel laureates by university affiliations" must be presented with a list of Nobel laureates followed by the universities they have been affiliated with, instead of a list of universities. Really? When we say there is a list of students by their years, do you think we actually list each student one by one followed by their years in college, or a list of freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors? Listing things by certain category (in our case, university) is not listing these things one by one followed by a category name, but listing categories one by one followed by the things contained in each of the categories. Why are you arguing this? Minimumbias (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • TompaDompa: it seems that I forgot to answer one of your questions. Even though the topic of this list is different from that of how universities claim their Nobel laureates. This topic of academic biographical data of Nobel laureates is not novel: it has important value and is of great interest, as already explained by many other editors including myself at several places in this page. For example, Andrew had mentioned a source of the same topic above [37], and it is not hard to find other example sources [38] [39][40]. But these sources are not up-to-date. Minimumbias (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • You can't seriously believe that the purpose of this article is to list biographical data about Nobel laureates and not to list the number of Nobel laureates per university. That's transparently false from the very construction of the list—there is no entry for Marie Curie or for Albert Einstein, but there are entries for Oxford and Caltech. The list focuses on the universities, not on the laureates. We even have a scoreboard of sorts for the universities.
                                      this already refutes your own claim that by choosing a specific topic, one has to define a specific set of criteria, because we can have 100 different criteria under this same topic What are you talking about? If we write an article on the topic of "how universities do in actual fact claim Nobel laureates", the fact that they do it differently from each other is part of that topic. If the topic is "number of Nobel laureates per university by counting method X", then changing the criteria from counting method X to counting method Y is writing about a different albeit similar topic.
                                      We do not claim laureates for the universities, ok? So you say, but that's untrue. We very explicitly do. We rank them by the number of laureates, for crying out loud! Who are you trying to kid?
                                      This is like the birthplaces data of Nobel laureates, or age data of Nobel laureates. Even if that were true, you would have to demonstrate that this is something that WP:Reliable sources actually do, that we're not writing about some novel topic. The sources you link to don't actually support this topic. this one writes about how many Nobel laureates "were educated and received their highest academic degrees" at each university and later, about "the universities credited with Nobel Prizes". This one doesn't write about which universities the Nobel laureates are affiliated with at all, though it does discuss some biographical details. This one, after briefly discussing this very Wikipedia list, counts "both the current affiliations and the universities from which recipients received their advanced degrees". And this one writes about Nobel laureates publication records and says about affiliation that “Affiliation” refers to the Nobel laureate’s affiliation while publishing the paper (which is, you know, a different topic than all their affiliations ever). You are blatantly misrepresenting what the topics of these sources actually is.
                                      academic affiliations are universally defined So you keep saying, but you don't back it up with sources. The definition for "academic affiliation" is entirely unsourced on the article. I'm saying that if it were true that academic affiliation is universally defined with certain critera, lists that say "these are the Nobel laureates affiliated with university X" would also use the same criteria as this list, but they don't (as evidenced by the fact that they come up with different figures).
                                      You keep saying that we are writing for the former topic of how universities claim Nobel laureates No, I'm saying that we're writing about our own, novel way to do it. Which we are. TompaDompa (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Now I don't think you have normal understanding of the English or the logic that other editors and I have been talking about, so this is very likely my last message to you. This does not mean I agree with anything that you said. It is just that I feel such discussion has become a pure waste of my time. 1) I've pointed out that a list of things by category is not listing these things one by one followed by a category name, but listing categories one by one followed by the things contained in each of these categories. You keep saying that we need to have an entry for Marie Curie or someone in this list. This is not even understanding the basic English language, and I have no further comments as I have no interest in teaching someone how to read. 2) Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of "criteria". A set of criteria is defined for a particular purpose. Such as Harvard's criteria is defined for their own counting purpose. If we take this purpose out of the definition of the criteria, then the "criteria" becomes meaningless. But "academic affiliation" is not defined for any particular purpose. Just like the birthplace of a Nobel laureate is not defined for any particular purpose. You cannot take a non-existent purpose out of their definitions and make them meaningless. I have repeated it several times, and I don't have time to explain it to you any further. If you don't understand English language well or does not understand how to communicate with others in a logical way, then I can't help. 3) As for the sources, I gave you examples to show you that the academic biographical data are of great value and interest, and I did not say the sources I gave you are exactly the same as our list. They are dozens of other sources such as [41][42][43][44] [45] that share our purpose. I don't know what you were referring to that I have to back up with, since I've repeatedly said our list represents universal facts and common sense. You seem to live in a world that when you see 5 people, you don't want to say it unless an external source tells you it's 5 people. You are either abusing the Wikipedia policy or using the policies to override people's common sense, which I've already discussed above. You can, in your logic, go to any professional page like [46] or [47] to ask them to be deleted, because there are common sense only known to some professionals but not to laymen, and do not have proper citations either for the content or for the notation - and it's likely that you are never able to find exact sources supporting the combinations of notations or the derivations of some of the content in those Wiki pages, which are actually common sense, not novel materials. Hence, I believe you at most know some of "university", but do not know "academia", since you do not appear to understand the common sense of academia & university that other editors and I have been talking about. If you wish to verify the common notion of "academic affiliations": students, faculty, short-term staff (postdocs, visiting professors, etc), you may go to any department's website with proper directory presented, such as [48][49][50][51], and verify it yourself. This is like primitive notion and axiom. Minimumbias (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • I've pointed out that a list of things by category is not listing these things one by one followed by a category name, but listing categories one by one followed by the things contained in each of these categories. You keep saying that we need to have an entry for Marie Curie or someone in this list. That's not actually what I said, and I don't know where you got that from. What I said was that if the purpose of the list had been to provide information about the laureates, the entries would have been laureates. And conversely, if the purpose of the list is to provide information about the universities, the entries would be universities (which they are). In other words: if you want to provide information about a laureate, you keep all the information about that laureate in one place (whereas the information about each university gets spread out across multiple laureates), but if you want to provide information about a university, you keep all the information about that university in one place (whereas the information about each laureate gets spread out across multiple universities). See what I mean?
                                          You're missing my point about e.g. Johns Hopkins and Cornell coming up with different figures than we do. The point is not that their figures are different per se. The point is that they explicitly say that these are people affiliated with them, but somehow their list of who is affiliated with them is different from ours. The sources are not using affiliation to mean the exact same thing we are. If their interpretation of affiliation were the same as ours, their lists would match ours. They interpret affiliation slightly differently. They use a different definition of affiliation. That wouldn't be possible if, as you claim, affiliation were universally defined exactly the way you define it.
                                          I've repeatedly said our list represents universal facts and common sense Which is to say that you've asserted it without any evidence. And I'm dismissing it for (A) lack of evidence and (B) evidence to the contrary.
                                          You seem to live in a world that when you see 5 people, you don't want to say it unless an external source tells you it's 5 people. I don't know where you got that idea. If you have a list with 5 entries, you can say that it has 5 entries.
                                          A set of criteria is defined for a particular purpose. [...] I honestly can't tell what point you're trying to make here. "Academic affiliation" is not a fundamental property of the universe. It's a human construct. It's defined by humans. The definition sets out criteria. Those criteria constitute the definition. The definition in the WP:LEAD is more than a paragraph long and it's full of criteria. What counts as an academic affiliation and what does not is a set of criteria—all employment-based visiting positions, which carry teaching or research duties, are included as affiliations in the list is an inclusion criterion for the list, for instance. You say that we're "simply explaining" the concept of academic affiliations as if it were some fundamental property of the universe, but again, it's not. It's a human construct that exists as a collective term for a group of other human constructs.
                                          I gave you examples to show you that the academic biographical data are of great value and interest, and I did not say the sources I gave you are exactly the same as our list. They are dozens of other sources such as [...] that share our purpose. Now you're just equivocating—"Those things are academic biographical data, and these things are academic biographical data, so if those things are of great value and interest, then these things are of great value and interest." It doesn't work like that, and you know it. You wouldn't accept an equivalent argument about something different.
                                          I want you to understand that I'm not saying that this article has to be deleted, necessarily. It's actually possible to construct a valid list with this title: a list of Nobel laureates by their university affiliation at the time they received the Nobel Prize. That list would not be novel, because sources do actually list Nobel laureates that particular way. But it would not be a different version of this list, it would be a fundamentally different list altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • TompaDompa, let me address the issue of academic affiliation. This is what User:Minimumbias wrote above: Academic affiliation with a university is almost a universally defined term in academia: students, faculty, short-term staff. A simple source [52] is already provided in the list. You didn't read what he wrote. If you don't know basic arithmetic (say 2+2=4), you cannot learn algebra. "Academic affiliation" is an elementary term you must learn if you want to understand List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Cornell, Harvard and Johns Hopkins don't interpret academic affiliation slightly differently or use different definition. They interpret and define academic affiliation (students, faculty, and short-term staff) just as it is interpreted and defined here. Go to any departments of those universities, and it will become clear that they define and interpret academic affiliation in the same way as it is done on Wikipedia. For instance, see [53] or [54]. As Minimumbias said above, academic affiliation is like primitive notion and axiom. Comments such as "they interpret affiliation slightly differently" or "they use a different definition of affiliation" shows your misunderstanding. Your comment such as "if their interpretation of affiliation were the same as ours, their lists would match ours" is completely wrong. The official counts of Cornell, Harvard and Johns Hopkins are different from List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation because they use subjective criteria for counting their Nobel affiliates. They use the same definition of academic affiliation as we do, but they use different criteria while counting Nobel affiliates in their official lists. Got it? Universities can create own their lists using their own subjective criteria, but such things cannot be done on Wikipeida. Such subjective criteria cannot be applied to Wikipedia lists because of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Editors of Wikipedia cannot control the behavior of other universities. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation must not use subjective criteria. The only "criteria" that can be used on the list is almost the universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation". Editors have to stay neutral and avoid subjective interpretations. This list is the best that editors can create and maintain on Wikipedia. Ber31 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • Did you miss the part after where they said we are using universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation", instead of Cambridge's definition? You can't have it both ways; that's not what "universal" means. The Cambridge list is nice inasmuch as it clearly outlines their criteria: Our list includes: alumni; academics who carried out research at the University in postdoctoral or faculty positions; and official appointments (visiting fellowships, lectureships, etc). We have not included informal positions, non-academic positions and honorary positions. We have omitted several Laureates where there is insufficient information available to confirm their connection with the University. That's not the same thing as we're saying (for one thing, our division into three categories—alumni, long-term staff, and short-term staff—is not used by them). Also, Cambridge explicitly says "Affiliates of University of Cambridge have received more Nobel Prizes than those of any other institution" whereas we list Harvard as having a significantly higher number, so clearly something is amiss here.
                                              You say that The official counts of Cornell, Harvard and Johns Hopkins are different from List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation because they use subjective criteria for counting their Nobel affiliates. They use the same definition of academic affiliation as we do, but they use different criteria while counting Nobel affiliates in their official lists., but where are you getting that from? You're certainly not getting it from the sources. Johns Hopkins and Cornell don't say that they're using some subjective criteria, they say that they're listing Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins and Nobel Laureates Affiliated with Cornell University, respectively. They say that they're listing the ones that are affiliated with them, and you're basically accusing them of lying.
                                              This list is the best that editors can create and maintain on Wikipedia. Maybe, but if that means we aren't following the sources, then we shouldn't have it. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that there are 382 links to this page, though some might come from the page itself. Many of those, someone will have to go through and change. As for WP:ITSINTERESTING, it seems that the Nobel prize is followed more by the general public than just about anything else that science does. Some scientists (especially those who don't have one) might believe that the general public is over interested in them. Otherwise, my only contribution to the page is the {{anchor}}s, so not a big investment. Gah4 (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That the Nobel prize is notable is not in dispute. However, notability is not inherited; and disregarding that entirely, it is not a reason to keep a page which is based on original criteria (which, more often that not, match few if any of the reliable sources on the topipc) for its content. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several universities that has their own lists of Nobel laureates affiliated with those universities. Such lists are maintained by many institutions, companies and other types of organizations. For instance, Stanford University[70], Caltech[71], UChicago[72] Cambridge University[73], US DOE[74], Sheffield University[75], etc. have their own Nobel lists. Even a college of Cambridge University called "Churchill College" has a similar list:[76]. Several media outlets and research journals have published articles and papers on the alma mater of Nobel laureates and the universities they work. For instance, here is an article published on Nature: Where Nobel winners get their start. Here is an article published by Times Higher Education: Top 10 universities for producing Nobel prizewinners. The claim that this list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization is completely false. This list is not based on "original criteria". Ber31 (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have obviously attacked a strawman, because what I said is not "there are no sources" but "more often that not, [this list] match[es] few if any of the reliable sources on the topic". There being sources does not mean that an article which blatantly does not follow them and is instead creating its own criteria for who is affiliated to which university is acceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Different organizations and universities have different criteria for counting Nobel prizes. The criteria for List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation emerged out of many careful discussions between different editors over the years. You need to carefully read my response to TompaDompa. RandomCanadian, your arguments are totally flawed. You have failed to provide any detailed arguments. Your argument is basically WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Ber31 (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me add a few points for Ber31, because I've responded to one or two editors above with similar claims. The so-called "criteria" we are using in the list is "academic affiliations" which are universally defined terms: students, faculty, short-term staff. We are explaining it to the public, instead of creating new rules or new terms. The discussion on the Talk page over the years came to this conclusion, because by using the universal terms we are able to avoid violating Wiki guidelines. In other words, we are not using a set of original criteria in the list, since we are not adding in anything. The title is a well-defined topic, and we are just doing that in the content: plainly stating the alma mater and working places of the laureates. That's it. Minimumbias (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V (the requirement for content to be based on reliable sources); WP:NOR (the requirement that material not be based on original interpretation/synthesis of sources; even if it is the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors on a talk page) and WP:NOT (not everything that appears in other sources needs to appear in an encyclopedia, which is a summary, not an exhaustive database) are all valid arguments. Argumenta ad lapides, on the other hand, such as the claims that my argument is "completely false" or that my arguments are "totally flawed", which fail to address any of this, are, well, informal fallacies, and I have no need nor intention to further reply here. Have fun, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the list, the requirements for the content are based on reliable sources. I have given several examples above. You don't seem to read them properly. The materials on the list are not based on original interpretation/synthesis of sources. Please read what Minimumbias wrote just above you. The list is not a database. Ber31 (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll keep this short, but Keep per keepers above! Let's not pretend the universities involved think this is "trivial". Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I’m sure the universities don’t, but I think that’s what WP calls a “primary source”. Dronebogus (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publications by Nobel Foundation are secondary [77]. Publications on major University websites, such as [78], are primary, but they can be used per WP:PRIMARY (primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia..., we assume there is a degree of an editorial control out there). References to personal CV must be avoided, especially for living people; they fall under WP:SELFPUB. In any event, this is not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:My very best wishes: CVs of Nobel laureates that are published by major universities can be included. CVs that are published by blogs or webpages should be avoided since they would fall under WP:SELFPUB. Ber31 (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Lists of Nobel laureates by institutional affiliation has lists for each university, and more referenced information. Biographies of anyone mentions what university they went to. But would it matter if these people went to a different school? Same textbooks and teaching methods, so what difference would it make? Colleges brag about their successful students of course. When the news media mentions who won the nobel prizes for everything, do they mention what school they went to? Dream Focus 19:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly not in the way this list does it at least, since this list includes affiliations after receiving the Nobel Prize. TompaDompa (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, sure, they usually do [79], e.g. Francis Crick "studied physics at University College, London". This is usually considered a relevant information. And this is definitely a very good College. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on My very best wishes's reply to my query. Good reason to have the article, and also if its a valid category its a valid list. Dream Focus 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By my analysis, this list clearly meets WP:LISTN. Any argument that I would use, however, has been used before. It's probably time to start wrapping up this AfD. gidonb (talk) 22:02, 17 October 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 10:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olymbios Antoniades[edit]

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

Played 5 minutes of a game of professional football about 4.5 years ago, which is only a very weak presumption of passing WP:GNG, especially considering that the game itself was an inconsequential end-of-season fixture, where clubs often throw on kids as if it's a friendly match. A search of Greek sources only comes up with weak coverage like a video of a goal scored in a friendly match and a routine announcement of serving a suspension for accumulating too many yellow cards in the Cypriot Third Division. As with Agapios Agapiou et al, this type of coverage is often considered insufficient.

That being said, I appreciate the article creator's efforts to improve coverage of footballers from countries where there are a lack of articles, just, in my view, this footballer doesn't seem to pass GNG currently. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep in principle, passes NFOOTY and has active playing career.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nowhere near GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with 5 minutes he fails the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 15:30, 13 October 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 10:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Groenewald[edit]

Sarah Groenewald (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 a similar case to Jodie Bain, Ebony Weidenbach and perhaps most of all Deanna Niceski (due to the only coverage basically being about her career outside football).

I can't find any clear evidence of a WP:GNG pass for Groenewald, unfortunately. An Australian source search yielded only very brief mentions in match reports, stats databases and pages about her subsequent career as a pilates teacher. The pilates coverage is written by her or by organisations connected with her so do not count as independent coverage and therefore doesn't confer any notability. ProQuest has nothing of note and Google News has nothing at all. Out of the two sources currently cited, the Canberra Times one seems to be permanently dead, however, the title indicates that it's a match report while the FourFourTwo source is clearly only a trivial mention.

It's quite clear that this is a WP:BLP of someone who isn't in the public eye. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nominator, fails WP:NFOOTBALL both sources in the article are 404 errors to me, my search finds social media sites and world football statistics therefore also failing WP:GNG in my opinion JW 1961 Talk 21:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Doesn't pass any notability guidelines.Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:02, 15 October 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 moved to Draft-space under Draft:Super League XXVII Regular Season Table. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 11:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super League XXVII Regular Season Table[edit]

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG guideline.  ||  Orbit Wharf  💬 09:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close and Move to template space. This was obviously supposed to be a template, hence the name, template markup, template categories etc. The easiest thing to do with misplaced templates is to move them to the correct namespace, rather than trying to delete them as an article. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:26, 12 October 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 J.P. Morgan in the United Kingdom#Retail banking. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chase (UK)[edit]

Chase (UK) (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. Doesn't meet with WP:COM and WP:GNG guideline.  ||  Orbit Wharf  💬 09:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  ||  Orbit Wharf  💬 09:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  ||  Orbit Wharf  💬 09:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:17, 12 October 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 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Wikia Alliance[edit]

Anti-Wikia Alliance (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 can't find any clear evidence that this meets WP:NWEB. The group definitely exists but the only evidence of existence is its own pages on Wiki and Fandom sites. It doesn't appear that any independent WP:RS have taken notice yet so at best this looks to be WP:TOOSOON. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am shocked at how quickly this article was put up for deletion. I have just started the article! Onlyforwikiapps (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that this is a bit quick but, in my searches, I was genuinely unable to find any reliable, independent sources about the group. Have you managed to find any? What was the reliable source that you based the article text on? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:25, 12 October 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 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas Bircan[edit]

Ilyas Bircan (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:NFOOTY (single appearance in a non-fully professional league) and WP:BASIC (couldn't find significant coverage in my search on Google) so far as I can see. Unless someone can find sources that I can't see and show that he passes BASIC, Bircan is not notable. JavaHurricane 07:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 12 October 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Museums of Florence[edit]

Museums of Florence (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 unnecessary essay-like article, very much a tour guide, likely WP:OR. The museums have their own articles, or individual articles can be created where they do not. See WP:NOTGUIDE. This has been moved to draft once already. Unilaterally moving it back would be move warring, so I have brought it here for discussion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but then, I am the author. First, let me say that the article is absolutely not WP:OR because every statement has been carefully sourced. The reason I started the article was that there was a nice version of it in Italian Wikipedia, and provided an overview of the museums and facts about them "as a whole", e.g. that there are many museums there, because the city was not attacked, even during WWII, and that the museums exist now because the Medici and the Savoy put their art there. Also the fact that the museums give rise to the Stendhal syndrome applies to them all, not each. And no one disputes that the article is notable. If Museums in Paris exists as a page, why not the museums in Florence? Hence the WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply here, given that it uses Paris as the key example. It says that the price of café au lait, etc. should not be mentioned and this article does not do that. Is the "Museums in Paris" page a tour guide, or an essay? No. This article is also not a tour guide or an essay. And note that there is also List of museums in Paris so Wikipedia uses both types of articles on the same subject. And User:Salimfadhley who placed the essay tag before, and moved to draft agreed that the tag was not proper and the article is not an essay. There was no reason for me not to move it back. Overall, "much ado about nothing" regarding a notable topic, and a fully referenced article. It is just surprising what one has to do to help build an article on a notable topic, which is fully referenced. I will not get a dime if this article exists, but I had assumed that the users would have been helped by the article. Ode+Joy (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment - That's not an accurate assessment of what I thought about the article at the time. I'd appreciate it if you don't misrepresent me in these discussions. I did ask you not to move the draft back into the mainspace yourself, and trust the AFC/review process. It seems that you ignored this suggestion. Honestly, I think you can do better than this. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, if I wanted to misrepresent you, I would not have pinged you! I pinged you, so you would know that I had said that. What I meant was this essay comment and then the tag removal comment. You did "suggest" not to move back, but that was a suggestion, and did not refer to a policy. As a confirmed user, I did not have to go through review. That is the whole point of being an autoconfirmed user. And given that the "essay tag" was your only reason for move to draft space, once that issue had been resolved, there was no reason not to move back. I breached no policy (I never do) and I was correct when I said that you agreed the tag could be removed. Ode+Joy (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The current content does appear to be like a travel guide. I wonder if transforming it into a list (which has a separate set of criteria - WP:NLIST) would be more appropriate and could save the article. Urve (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was thinking much the same as Urve. Rewrite this content in the lead for a list of museums in Florence, which would easily pass NLIST. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urve and Rhododendrites: Please let me ask: Why didn't you two vote delete? Because you knew the topic is notable, and the content is well sourced. Yet, WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply because no one has given a specific example of that, or a comparison to Museums in Paris. In fact the nominator has not provided even one valid policy based reason for deletion. So let us look at the nominator's rationale:
  • Is the topic notable? Absolutely. No one disputes that given the many Google books results on the topic.
  • Is the nominator's "likely WP:OR" statement valid? Not at all. In fact he did not say that it is OR, but used "likely". Why say likely? Check if it is OR or not. And what is OR about Florence having museums? Everyone knows that there are many museums in Florence.
  • Does WP:NOTGUIDE apply? Certainly not, as discussed above regarding Museums in Paris. This was just thrown in the air without any specific reasoning. That is not a valid reason. Indeed Museums in Paris and List of museums in Paris serve different purposes.
  • Does WP:essay apply as Salimfadhley tagged the page? No, not at all, because that refers to comments about the encyclopedia, not the "contents" of the encyclopedia. The nominator should certainly read that page.
  • Does WP:NOTESSAY apply? No, not at all, because that refers to original tought and personal inventions. I did no invent Florence, or any of the museums, and the content is fully sourced. If it is not WP:OR then it is not a personal invention.
  • All that remains is the "unnecessary" characterization. I checked and WP:UNNECESSARY exists but is not a policy, but an essay. I suggest that the nominator should read the pages on WP:essay, WP:NOTESSAY and WP:UNNECESSARY before using those terms again.
  • The only remaining reason is WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of the nominator, which again is not a valid policy based reason.
No valid policy based reason has been given why the article should not be there. Personally, I would prefer deletion to transformation into a list, as had suggested on the talk page when I started the article. If the article exist or not will make no big difference to my life, so if it is not to be so be it. I started it to so some good, but if it is not good enough, I will do my best not to make the mistake of starting new articles any more. I will put up Draft:Limoges_Fine_Arts_Museum which I am doing now, and be done with that. This whole unbelievable mess started because I did not know about the "underconstruction flag" and started a small article as is done on the Italian and French Wikipedias, so I could work on it gradually. I now know about the draft space, but the treatment I received at "article review" consisted of the quotation of one incorrect policy after another, in the same style as this nomination. So why am I typing here? Because I am insulted by the suggestion that I have somehow breached policy, or used WP:Or etc. I have breached no policy, have used no WP:OR and have not built an article on a topic that is not notable. That should be clear. That is all I ask. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draftspace, it is clear that this editor was unaware of the article creation process on English Wikipedia. Here on English Wikipedia, if an article is in the process of being created, then Draft space is the best place for it as it's sort of a safe space for new articles while they're still being made (doesn't mean they stay there until they're ready for mainspace though). I think it should be moved to a draft and made into a list and worked on from there. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User has agreed to move article back to draft space to work on it after being presented with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They said that they won't make it into a list however so I offered to assist them in cleaning up the article. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable, independent, reliable sources exist. It is possible to have an encyclopedic article on the topic, in parallel with a list article on the museums of Florence. Museums in Florence can be an encyclopedic article on the historical, political an economical context in which those museums exist. Vexations (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination: An unnecessary essay-like article, very much a tour guide, likely WP:OR. IMHO tens of thousands of WP articles are unnecessary, but I wouldn't class this among them. It doesn't read to me like a tour guide, other than in its favorable references to the places it covers; but the favorableness is referenced, unsurprising in that Florence is, I think, universally acknowledged to have a remarkable set of remarkable museums, especially given its population or area. Tour guide? Well, there are tour guides and tour guides: if the text of this article resembled that of some "bucket list" tripe, there'd be cause for concern; but if it has a degree of resemblance to that of a Guide Bleu, Blue Guide, a (red-bound) Baedeker or a Nagel's Encyclopedia-Guide, this is no bad thing, as such books were compiled to inform and enlighten. I don't see "OR". Yes, the article needs improvement, but then so do most WP articles. Unlike very many, this is about a subject that merits the effort.-- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazing, two Wikipedia editor with a sense of reason. Who would have guessed? But as I stated on Wikipedia:Teahouse#A_comment,_not_a_question, the behavior of JBChrch, Salimfadhley and Timtrent made me decide to quit editing because I do not want to watch this page for 7 more days and read dumb comments. The page review process seems set to push away new users. Well, it worked. My next step: open the bubbly and celebrate my departure to a world where I can have intelligent conversations. Ode+Joy (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You realize, Ode+Joy, that you're entirely free to ignore this particular page and instead tinker with the Florence article? That attractive option aside, thank you for the kind remarks about Vexations and myself. I can't speak for Vexations, but if you believe that I am sensible or reasonable you may be mistaken. On my user page, you'll see an interesting assortment of perceptive views on my sense and reason, or rather the lack thereof. Peruse it as you sip your bubbly, and happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ode+Joy: Allegations of misbehavior should be posted at WP:ANI and not on discussion pages. I have already warned you that you need to conform to WP:CIV, so if you continue with your accusations against me or other editors I will report you myself. JBchrch talk 12:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is notable and article can be improved upon by others with time. Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is valuable, sourced, notable content which should be kept. Like others, I don't see a clear argument for deletion, but I think the nom is reacting to the focus of the article "Museums of Florence" as being potentially vague and subjective. This article is neither of those things. It would be helpful if the article had a verifiable statement of scope, "these are the 12 most-visited museums" or "among the top Florentine museums chosen by Rough Guide" or something like that, to show that this isn't just the editor's choices, and to allow a basis for others to contribute too. --Lockley (talk) 18:57, 16 October 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) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Park Aquarium[edit]

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG. And I've some doubt in WP:NPLACE. Because there is said that Attractions and landmarks often survive AfD. Here often means almost time. But I don’t know whether the often applies to it.  ||  Orbit Wharf  💬 06:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  ||  Orbit Wharf  💬 06:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references do not open for me to anything. Is there a problem with the way they were put in this article? I want to check them before making a judgement. --Bduke (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry what can I do to fix the article?? Binturong32 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the links so if you click on them now they will redirect Binturong32 (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but the references are not independent of the topic. You need some that are. --Bduke (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Binturong32 (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Binturong32 Hi everyone I'll try find some more independent sources. I'm not affiliated with this place in any way and am a completely independent researcher; I highly implore anyone who can assist with helping to update the page to make acceptable would really appreciate a lot. Just want to say that this facility is a major tourism venture in the state and I cant emphasize stronger that it truly is a valid candidate for its own Wikipedia page.[reply]
  • Keep Four more references added, one from the main daily newspaper in Western Australia. Now satisfies WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I will await the outcome of this discussion before reviewing the article through to the main space. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any open-to-the-public aquarium with multiple exhibits including a big shark tank is effectively a museum and is going to be Wikipedia-notable: it is a public attraction, it is a museum, etc. See essay wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION / wp:ITSAMUSEUM, to which i contributed. Okay, the essay can be modified to explicitly mention public aquariums, and wp:ITSANAQUARIUM (currently a redlink) can be directed to there too. --Doncram (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Rough Guide to Australia of 2019 called it a "world class" facility here. Along with the references now in the article, this clearly the bar for notability.--Lockley (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Binturong32 (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Thankyou so much everyone involved in contributiong to greatly improving the page (especially Hughesdarren). As an example of searching wiki for other place's pages to see some examples of how further to improve the page I noticed that the 'Armadale Reptile Centre' page doesn't have any sources cited at all besides the website which I just wanted to point out seems a little bit unbalanced in my personal opinion as it is not nominated for deletion (not that I wish it to be just wanted to compare it with Ocean Park) and for full transparency I have contributed to that page also in terms of it's species list (which I realise I should now cite, apologies). Its just that I'm not sure why that page escapes a need for improvement tag/scheduled for deletion tag when Ocean Park still has one after major improvements?? -- Binturong32 (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To Binturong32, it's fine to note that Armadale Reptile Centre is mostly unreferenced. FYI, pointing out some other articles are worse is a type of argument termed wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When that label is stated it is usually meant derogatorily, to dismiss some good faith editor. But for this Ocean Park Aquarium article and for that one, I think it is reasonable for (virtually) everyone to agree that the topics are going to be Wikipedia-notable, because we can assume at first and prove if we have to, that substantial coverage exists. The reasoning of wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION / wp:ITSAMUSEUM applies. I agree with you that it would be great if any participants here would choose to go and beef up that article. I also don't think anyone should rush to nominate it for deletion and try to force work on the rest of us. That would be wp:POINTY, i.e. disruptive of Wikipedia in an unproductive, false way. Because the person would be nominating it while knowing it is a notable topic. And wp:BEFORE and wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP would apply. Anyhow, thank you Binturong for developing this article and for participating here. --Doncram (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Binturong32(talk) Hi its been a week since marked for deletion. Doesn't it normally expire after that?Binturong32 (talk) 07:55, 19 October 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 06:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kash[edit]

Kevin Kash (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. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable actor and we can't find significant coverage about him.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on credits listed on IMDB, he does not meet WP:NACTOR. KidAd • SPEAK 23:15, 12 October 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 deleted as G7. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Intense Championship Wrestling[edit]

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT guideline.  ||  Orbit Wharf  💬 05:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  ||  Orbit Wharf  💬 05:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only brief allusions to subject in reliable sources. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having done some more research, subject fails WP:PW/NPROM; there is no secondary evidence that this promotion holds a large number of annual events or of how long they have been in business. They appear to have been added based on trivial mentions of ex-WWE wrestlers Rhyno and Heath Slater being their Tag Team Champions. Furthermore, the author has blanked the article page himself, so I believe we have reason to Speedy delete this. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:35, 17 October 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 withdrawn. My WP:BEFORE efforts were lacking. Users Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11 have added sufficient SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Whitewater State Warhawks football team[edit]

1968 Whitewater State Warhawks football team (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 both WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. 1968 Whitewater was a run-of-the-mill team (6–3–1 record) playing in the NAIA -- i.e., the lowest level of college football. The article lacks any independent sourcing, and my searches failed to locate any WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a bunch of reliable, third-party sourcing to the article. I found lots of significant coverage from papers all over Wisconsin just for the first two games of the season. That first game surely got lots of coverage in West Virginia papers too, but West Virginia seems to be conspicuously absent from Newspapers.com. I'm sure similar coverage can be found for the remaining games. I understand that this is an NAIA season, but in 1968 NAIA play was highly interlaced with that of the NCAA College Division, with many teams and conferences apparently holding membership in both associations. Coverage of the subject certainly looks as extensive as say 1941 DePauw Tigers football team, created by nominated. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Solid research by Jweiss11. My searches did not turn up much. That said, I still have doubts about creating stand-alone articles for routine, non-exceptional seasons at the lowest level of college football. The college football project needs to exercise discretion as to when and where season articles are warranted. There is a move afoot to enforce WP:NSEASONS more aggressively (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team), and if we don't exercise some restraint, others will likely come in and seek to impose a form of restraint that we find far more troubling. As for DePauw, WP:OSE is on point. Cbl62 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, WP:OSE is a red herring, as it almost always is when invoked in discussions like these, as you right here have drawn comparison to "other stuff" like 2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team. Consistent standards across the encyclopedia matter. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concern in making this nom is that the community has demonstrated (e.g., at 2019 Ohio State soccer team) that it will not tolerate indiscriminate creation of season articles about every low-level, mediocre, run-of-the-mill small college athletics season. If the college football project doesn't exercise some reasonable discretion to limit the creation of stand-alone articles, others who don't have your depth of understanding about college football will step in. IMO we best demonstrate our good editorial judgment by limiting NAIA season articles to exceptional cases, e.g., championship seasons or programs that have since "graduated" to Division I. In this case, there is nothing remotely exceptional about the 1968 Whitewater State football team. Cbl62 (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per passing WP:GNG. I note well Cbl's concern about... well... everything and it's very possible that Cbl is correct that other editors will overwhelmingly demand articles like this be removed. For me, 1) I've rarely let other people's opinions change my interpretation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines; 2) "other people probably won't like it" is not a reason to delete; 3) conensus is not a popularity contest, and 4) deletion would not be the answer anyway. It may well be that as a project we should advocate to merge smaller-college season articles in one way or another, but I see those as editing steps and not deletion steps--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 12 October 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 06:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mateu Ferrer[edit]

Mateu Ferrer (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:FOOTY and WP:GNG, never played in a WP:FPL. BRDude70 (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete fails WP:GNG, per nom. The idea seems to be: kick a ball, get a wiki page. It is not so. Ode+Joy (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:21, 12 October 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hideout in the Sun[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 3 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes [80], review at DVD Talk [81] DonaldD23 talk to me 21:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes don't contribute towards notability. The link to One Room With a View doesn't actually describe the film that's the article subject, nor does the review from Caimanediciones, nor does the review from Culturamas. They all reference a film called "The Sun, The Sun Blinded Me," which has a substantially different plot and cast than the one described in the article. The three reviews would need to actually be about the film that's the subject of this article for them to contribute towards that film's notability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 12 October 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 06:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary van der Valk[edit]

Mary van der Valk (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 created by user named the same as the subject and mostly written by a single-purpose IP; most info on the page is completely without a source. The given references are just two book database/purchasing sites and a blogpost written by the Berlicum library, nothing reliable. Meets no criteria of WP:NAUTHOR as I could not find any professional reviews of any of the mentioned works in English or Dutch (though it is entirely possible I missed something in Dutch) or anything about the author specifically. All of the Authority control entries have zero or very little info. I even went searching on the things mentioned on the Wikidata entry - this site which is used as a source for many of the statements contain no prose at all, while the "Iedereen Leest" site has no mention of her. The "Berlicum Children's Jury Award", mentioned in the article, is cited to the aforementioned blogpost (in Dutch which calls it "Berlicumse Kinderjury"), which states that the book was awarded it by six children from three primary schools (Google Translate) -- certainly not a significant award and indeed there is essentially no other mention of "Berlicum Children's Jury Award" or "Berlicumse Kinderjury" on the internet. eviolite (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. eviolite (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. eviolite (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NAUTHORand the citations are weak. Created by user named User:Mary van der Valk. The article has been tagged for improvement since 2013, with no substantial improvements made. I can't find any reliabe sources for biographical information on this author. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Created by the subject, and notability is not proven. She doesn't even have an article on the Dutch wiki either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 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 02:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy by Hilton Portland Pearl District[edit]

Canopy by Hilton Portland Pearl District (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 run-of-the-mill, newly-opened hotel of no significant distinction or notoriety. Mangoe (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per GNG, multiple reliable sources with detailed coverage (disclaimer: article creator). There's coverage of the hotel's planning, construction, interior design, exterior design, LEED certification, amenities, history, management, restaurant, and reception. That's enough in my book! I vote to expand, not delete, the entry. Also, nominator's rationale is not an assessment of secondary coverage (or lack thereof). ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it all looks like routine local and trade journal stuff. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. Just FYI, The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. Also, I've shared links to 3 Fodor's books on the talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of notability would be the only reason to delete this, and the article meets the criteria with eleven varied, credible sources. --Lockley (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Oregonian sources establish notability. Ample sourcing passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Oregonian, Daily Journal of Commerce, and other RS establish notability. As mentioned by Another Believer, The Oregonian is "the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation." --Kbabej (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above. —AFreshStart (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though I'm not positive on the solidity of the first on the west coast claim. Also the Oregonian is enough for WP:ORG, in addition to GNG !votes above. Star Mississippi 01:48, 17 October 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. ✗plicit 06:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Development Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Workers Development Union (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, WP:ORGSIG and WP:NORG The Banner talk 08:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the concerns outlined by the OP, the article is written rather like an advertisement: "SAS works among the masses to transform unjust structures of society and to build harmonious communities of diverse peoples, religions, languages and cultures helping them to satisfy their basic human needs." Perhaps not surprising, as most of it is sourced to this 12-page paper, pp. 17—28, which is also written like an advertisement and is part of a collection with the subtitle "Marketing to promote local breeds and improve livelihoods". Note in the preliminary matter of this collection that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, as well as several other prestigious organizations involved, distance themselves from any responsibility for the opinions in the individual papers, and from any mention of specific companies or products. "The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of FAO, LPP or IUCN" (p. 4). So the mention in the footnote of the Food and Agriculture Organization as publisher, while true and surely offered in good faith, could be a little misleading. Bishonen | tålk 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The subject is a non government organization also called Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh and Jana Jagran is notable for sheep/wool rearing though it works in other areas we well, particurly for its success in working with the Kurubas in marketing wool the NGO has developed a pilot project to help Kuruba women in Belgaum district in Karnataka to make and sell products made from the wool of the Deccani sheep.The Hindu and the fact that this highlighted in the FAO Animal Production and Health Paper for the year 2010 also due to the fact that the project was a success and this NGO is notable for it .The fact is 3 names makes it tough to search local Kannada language and Marathi language coverage this is notable as per WP:NEXIST. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article already has references from the The Hindu ,Indiana University and the Food and Agriculture Organization.Only said finding local language sources is difficult.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are sources, and likely more in local languages and print-only newspapers. LashandaWilhelm (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 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) 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Weapons[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Book cited in article, review at CineMagazine [82] DonaldD23 talk to me 21:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CineMagazine looks like a group blog from what I can tell (although I can't speak Dutch, so I'm limited to machine translations). Is it considered to be a non-self-published, reliable, independent source here? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • CineMagazine has been used on hundreds of articles and AfDs and the general consensus is that it is independent and reliable. It has editorial oversight according to its about page. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. The source that User:Donaldd23 suggested counts towards notability, as do the books From the Arthouse to the Grindhouse; Highbrow and Lowbrow Transgression in Cinema's First Century and 100 Cult Films that testify to the importance of the movie. That's three good sources, where only two are needed: two reviews and one cinema history discussion (From the Arthouse). gidonb (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMDb lists 43 reviews. After having taken a quick look at some of them, I'm convinced that this meets our notability requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 23:05, 18 October 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) 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Karaj Rock Concert incident[edit]

2007 Karaj Rock Concert incident (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 to meet Wikipedia:Notability (events), no sources are found for it. Pahlevun (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nominator is patently wrong as there are sources for it, even in the article at present. If the sources are to be dismissed, a more in-depth analysis of the incident is required. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: I think it was clear that I used non-literal language to say that additional sources are not found to establish notability. Do these two sources count as "significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time", as Wikipedia:Notability (events) says? Pahlevun (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Asian Age Group Swimming Championships[edit]

2015 Asian Age Group Swimming Championships (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 sports event. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply a results listing. no third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no context, and might be an event for children. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 18 October 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_October_12&oldid=1051944521"