Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 13	May 15 >

Guide to deletion

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VxFly UUV[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed under new page patrol. This is basically only a catalog of the VxFly company's UUV's. No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SBSS UUV[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed under new page patrol. This is basically only a catalog of the SBSS company's UUV's. No indication of wp:notability. No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarobotman UUV[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed as a part of new page patrol, Basically a catalog of the Aquarobotman company's UUV's. No content other than that. No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robosea UUV[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol / curation. Basically a catalog of the Robosea company's UUV's. No indication of wp:notability. No real content other than being a catalog of their products. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator stated reason for withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death Row (Thomas Rhett song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable song (would likely fail WP:GNG in this regard), since it isn't a radio single currently in any charts. As WP pretty much usually requires this for a country song to get its own article, I fail to see where the threshold is met here. Misceditor1000 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, several of the sources are explicitly about the song, such as Billboard, Audacity, and Good Morning America. [1] and this are both WP:SIGCOV of the song too. Whether or not it was a single is not relevant if the sources are there, and it looks like this one passes easily. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works..." Mukedits (talk)
Comment. @TenPoundHammer: Fair enough. I saw that sources are there, but I was mainly concerned about the notability of the song itself. Songs like this which aren't radio singles are rarely accepted for articles on here as it is anyway due to our notability guidelines, hence me initally nominating for deletion here. Misceditor1000 (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it meets notability criteria now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but at this point the process will need to ride out potentially unless there's a way to withdraw a nomination or ask for a closure. Misceditor1000 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Miller (mixed martial artist)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and California. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage, just fight results and database listings. Never came close to being ranked in the top 10 and had only 14 wins in 25 fights. Papaursa (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neza Patricia Masozera[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG, perhaps WP:NOTYET? Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ontario. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The subject doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. May be "Most Promising Artist in Africa" by the All Africa Music Awards could give her some leverage, but not sure if the award is notable enough for consideration. Cirton (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not there to justify an article on a musician. "Most promising" anything awards are not merit awards, but awards that say people think you have potential but are not yet at that level, I do not think there is a "most promising" award anywhere which would be grounds for someone getting an article based on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is referenced to short blurbs and blogs, not to substantive WP:GNG-worthy media coverage, and it claims nothing about her that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than that. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tradable smoking pollution permits[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be moved to the jokes part of this encyclopedia - I will now ask my neighbours whether they have permits for their annoying coal fires Chidgk1 (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my prod summary (article was previously prodded, which Twinkle didn't catch): Random mishmash of jargon with no clear focus. Tagged for notability since 2010. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Law, and Environment. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A solution whose problem was solved (in blanket smoking bans). Good thing, but other common sense things (like open smoking patio 'rooms') have solved everything brought up here. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect List of Crash Bandicoot characters#Coco Bandicoot. Consensus here appears to be that this secondary character lacks enough significant coverage to merit a separate article. The article remains available in the history if there is further verifiable information that should be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Bandicoot[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the significant coverage needed to justify notability; the article's reception section consists primarily of passing mentions and sources that don't pertain specifically to the subject's characterization, actor performance, and/or impact on popular culture. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to List of Crash Bandicoot characters#Coco Bandicoot as it was previously. The justification to recreate the article just wasn't backed up by WP:RS. The character is worth a mention in a list of characters but basically all the reception are passing mentions of the character and not WP:SIGCOV; there is some heavy WP:REFBOMBing going on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - per two arguments above. Significant coverage just isn't there - it's all cherry-picked passing mentions, often of no real substance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the Redirect per above. There's not much argument to add, SIGCOV isn't there, passing mentions. -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after undoing a non-admin early closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 15.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. OceanHok (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First of all, I beg to differ on the "passing mention" claims. Let's look over some of the sources I've added since restoring the article:

https://gamerant.com/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-coco-playable/ - An entire article about her and her playable role in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy.

https://www.thegamer.com/coco-bandicoots-design-in-crash-bandicoot-on-the-run-burns-my-eyes/ - Another article devoted to her, much longer than the previous one. This discusses her design.

https://www.thegamer.com/crash-bandicoot-coco-awesome-fan-art/ - Yet another article devoted to her. While it lists fan art of her, the article also discusses her personality in the games.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/06/15/e3-2017-why-coco-is-playable-in-crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy - This discusses why she is playable in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/04/26/crash-bandicoot-the-wrath-of-cortex-review - Well, okay, I didn't really add this one, since it was already in there prior to the initial merge. But for a review of a game, it goes a bit into Coco beyond a passing mention.

Yes, some of the sources are passing mentions, but not all of them are. There could be more out there too. If find any, I'll add them in here.

I can understand why the article was initially merge back in 2011. There was barely any sources discussing Coco back then. However, more have since popped up, thanks to her playable roles in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy and Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time, addressing the very reason it was merged in the first place. This passes WP:GNG and WP:INU, which do not require "the subject's characterization, actor performance, and/or impact on popular culture" in reliable sources. The main purpose of INU is to avoid WP:PLOT articles, and Coco does that through the creation and reception sections. This goes beyond Wikia quality.

Besides, Coco is clearly an important character in the Crash Bandicoot series, pretty much being the deuteragonist. I think the reader would benefit from Coco having her own article more than being confined to a list with a bunch of less important characters, which goes more into detail than a list article could. MoonJet (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sources are situational-bordering-on-unreliable, per WP:VG/S discussions. The first IGN article mentions her inclusion in the game and a little of how they worked her in, but says almost nothing about her character. The second IGN article features a single paragraph which basically says nothing but "Not as good as Crash". This is not significant in-depth coverage. This will be my only reply, as the long long long one-sided discussion at Amy Rose about very similar sources and passing mentions suggests that you won't change your stance. -- ferret (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first three are listed as situational sources, yes, but keep in mind that I'm only citing them for opinion pieces, not facts. Furthermore, it says Game Rant is fine to cite at non-BLP articles and for things that are not controversial claims. And the first TheGamer source was published after August 2020. WP:VG/S says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." MoonJet (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told in prior discussions, a combination of passing mentions and fringe churnalism sources isn't a convincing case for notability. It's quite frankly getting a bit disruptive that we keep having to have these conversations because you're so obviously setting the standards far below where the community generally does. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something "churmalism" just strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You might consider them "churnalism," but others may not. If I'm setting the standards "far below where the community generally does," then maybe the problem is that the project is stricter than it should be. Never mind that fact the project literally states "Video game-related articles are considered notable by this project if they pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines." on the project page. MoonJet (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:VG/S description of TheGamer: News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Several editorial staff have bylines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247. Content published prior to August 2020 should be handled with care, particularly listicles that have little news or reporting significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already discussed this in reply to Ferret, but:

1. I am citing them for opinion pieces, not facts. See WP:RSOPINION.

2. One of the sources from TheGamer I cited in here was published after August 2020. MoonJet (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youre cherry-picking words. Churnalism is mine. But descriptors like iffy/fringe/not the best - these are pretty generally accepted. If a "The Gamer" source with a headline of "Look at the fan art" is among your strongest evidence for GNG satisfying sourcing, you're reallllllly reaching. I'm just surprised you're trying this so quickly after the community came to a clear consensus that your Amy Rose article had insufficient sourcing for its own article. This is the same sort of thing.Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter what the headline is? "Reaching?" No, I'm just gathering up some sources that discuss her that I've found, and TheGamer is acceptable for opinions, especially those posted after August 2020. Also consider the purpose behind GNG. If there's enough to write an article beyond a stub, it is presumably notable.

I know about the Amy Rose thing, but I was hoping to get a different result for Coco Bandicoot, really.

I plan to have another discussion on Amy Rose, by the way, as I've since found more sourcing for her since that consensus. MoonJet (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this is your response when both the Amy Rose and this discussion (so far) are unanimously against you? You're going to get yourself into WP:IDHT trouble acting like this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- can we try to focus this discussion on Coco Bandicoot and not User:MoonJet or the potential of an Amy Rose article? (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying applies to here at this AFD all the same. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent, sure; important, no. As far as gameplay goes, you could remove her playability outright and nothing would fundamentally change, and the games' marketing campaigns have clearly felt no need to prop her up to Crash's level. The series' central antagonist Cortex teaming up with Crash for one game was the primary marketing point of Crash Twinsanity, thus prodding reviewers toward analyzing Cortex as a character, but could the same ever have been said for Coco? As it stands, she's borderline window dressing presented only as an option for players who desperately need a playable character of the opposite sex, despite its lack of effect. And even then, she's not engaging enough as a personality for reviewers to devote the same kind of commentary they did to Cortex in Twinsanity. The games are not called Crash and Coco or Super Bandicoot Sibs, she's certainly not getting a headlining game any time soon, and fans aren't crazy enough about her to make so much as a ripple, so if she's not so essential, why would anyone pay any mind? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and others. While it initially looks like there are a lot of sources being included, this really seems to be a case of WP:REFBOMBing, as most of them are articles or reviews on the games she appeared in as a whole, that just mention her briefly as part of the review. Even most of the articles that are supposedly "about" her are simple statements of "Coco is playable in this game". As mentioned by Sergecross73 above, when the strongest actual source focused on the character is just a collection of fanart, that is not evidence that the character received enough significant coverage to justify an independent article, rather than being covered on the main character page for the franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't have full access to this source, but this seems to discuss Coco too: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/135485650000600404

If any of you have full access to this, please let me know. MoonJet (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just going by the headline, it looks like it's about female gamers and gaming culture as a whole, not specifically about the character. Access or no, this still doesn't advance your case. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be "specifically" about the character, just that its significant coverage. (WP:GNG explicitly states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.) But either way, I don't have access to that to tell if it is or not. MoonJet (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the study. Coco has less than two sentences of mention, in context of a child developer who wanted to use Coco as a playable character in her own Crash game (I.e. doing what later happened). The character itself is not discussed or even described beyond "appears in cutscenes". -- ferret (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and others. Reyk _YO! 04:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect North8000 (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect – per the above discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 05:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just found a source that talks about Coco in detail and about her "gender bias" and that kind of stuff (https://www.nymgamer.com/?p=17216) It's a big page too. Going by their about page (https://www.nymgamer.com/?page_id=2), the place seems to be reliable. I'll tag some people in here that previously voted for some thoughts. @Atsme: @North8000: @Reyk: @Rorshacma:. MoonJet (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is at all a reliable source. It's never been cited by other reputable gaming-related sources as far as I recall, or even within Wikipedia from what I can see. Just seems like another glorified blog. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their about page says this and I quote: "Over the years, NYMGamer’s slate of writers has featured professors, writers, and professionals from a variety of industries, but the focus has always been the same: unpacking games from a feminist perspective, and having a good time while we’re at it.

In 2015, we began planning a careful shift to a peer-reviewed middle-state publication offering a dedicated space to feminist games studies. Our first issue debuted in April 2018, and while we will continue to offer blog content, along with our regular podcast, the journal aims to create space for peer-reviewed articles on feminist games scholarship, including textual engagement, criticism, theory, and research, as well as multimedia presentations, as well as critical book and game reviews." MoonJet (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such a statement doesn't mean anything unless it cites specifics, and given how little mention this site has gotten from others, I'm not convinced that these "professors, writers, and professionals" could have been all that credible or influential. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it actually has been cited by Game Informer, another reputable gaming source. See here: https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/08/23/analysis-two-reasons-why-playable-female-characters-are-here-to-stay.aspx MoonJet (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A single point on a graph doesn't lend prestige. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is, MoonJet demonstrated that at least one reliable source has cited them for their research, in response to a sweeping claim that there is none who do. Their first peer-reviewed publication in 2018 had the involvement of Adrienne Shaw, a published academic who researches video games. I also found two other Wikipedia pages which have cited NYM Gamer as sources: Fran (Final Fantasy), a GA, and Zoë Quinn. I understand why other editors would still consider the sigcov threshold to not be met because we don't have enough sources, but you have not provided a convincing argument that we should disregard this source entirely due to alleged unreliability other then mere opinion. Haleth (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This cherry picking of pings is concerning. I actually believe this could potentially be treated as a reliable source, but even then, that makes it the only in-depth source uncovered so far, so doesn't change the status quo. Additionally, the particular author does not appear on the staff page, instead appearing to be a guest or freelance submission, which might kick out the reliableness. Unfortunately the site does not clearly label their blog content half, which makes it difficult to vet. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's TheGamer and GameRant sources too. Even if you want to discount the fan art article, there's still the other two. Though, I know you are leery on those due to them being situational sources, but I like I mentioned, they are fine for non-BLPs and non-exceptional claims, especially for opinion pieces.

Anyway, while the author is not on the staff page, it doesn't look like a site where just anyone can write for. Also, her Linkedin page says she has experience in Purdue University, which is where the top editors of that site are from. MoonJet (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - replying to ping. Many game characters arguably still reside in a niche market or they may be considered subordinates to a globally notable and highly popular main character, as is the case with Coco as demonstrated here. I must add that siblings of notable game characters do not automatically inherit that notability, and this is such a case. I'm not saying that all game characters must reach the level of global notability as did Pac-Man and Mario Bros. but they must reach the minimum requirements set forth in WP:GNG. At this time, Coco fails to meet those requirements. Perhaps that will change over time, but right now we have to consider NOTCRYSTALBALL, and until N is met, a redirect is the way to go. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:True, notability is not inherented. But you don't you think the NYM Gamer, TheGamer (which there's two of) and GameRant sources add up the minimal notability guidelines? Altogether, that's at least four sources of significant coverage (arguably more than that), more than the recommended mininum of three sources. Well, in Wikipedia's terms, non-trivial. Short doesn't necessarily equal trivial, as this page says. We should also consider why notability is a thing. I would argue there's easily enough here to write an encyclopedic article beyond a stub. MoonJet (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MJ - NYM Gamer began as a blog, but their "About" section states: In 2015, we began planning a careful shift to a peer-reviewed middle-state publication offering a dedicated space to feminist games studies. Then when you read Editors and Staff, we're not talking about a peer reviewed scientific journal, ok? You might say it's a bit of an advocacy or maybe not - either way, it's not quite what they paint themselves to be. Now look at The Gamer - editor-in-chief Stacey Henley is arguably famous but fame is not the same thing as notability. What are her encyclopedic/academic credentials? She appears to be an advocate for women's rights - we could certainly use her talents on WP - but does the editorial staff at The Gamer really qualify as experts for inclusion of academic/encyclopedic content relative to the study of feminism? The sources are not exactly what WP would consider scientific, academic in the same light as high quality WP:MEDRS. I shudder to think WP is going to be the home of every game character that's trending now because they were mentioned or written about in those 4 sources - which of course have their own agendas relative to the gaming industry; consider WP:NTEMP. I have no doubt that the editorial staff does their best to maintain credibility despite using outlets like Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, etc in their pool of sources. To keep things in perspective, we're talking about video games; technology comes and goes with the wind. Where does their money come from? Are they truly independent? I think those are questions that need closer study. Atsme 💬 📧 21:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, current consensus at WP:VG/RS is that TheGamer is reliable; though content posted before August 2020 is to be approached with caution. I mean, there's so many characters that do not have an article. Looking at the Crash series, the only other characters with articles are Crash himself and Dr. Cortex. It certainly wouldn't hurt for Coco to have one too.

Also, keep in mind I'm not citing TheGamer as academic source. It's NYM Gamer I'm citing as an academic source. MoonJet (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to correct you there. NYM Gamer is a website run by an editorial board, with some of its members being published academics (e.g. Mia Consalvo and Adrienne Shaw) or professional critics (Yussef Cole). The article you cited is a blog-style article, which is essentially on the same tier as typical features published by Kotaku and Polygon. It clearly has been through an editorial process, but it is not an academic source just because the editors in question may be academics. The actual academic journal itself is here, of which only two issues have been published at the time of writing. Haleth (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. NYM Gamer is probably the best source that has turned up in this discussion for the topic to date.The employment status of the article's author is not really relevant as long as the website or publication that publishes it demonstrates that it has an editorial apparatus in place where submitted articles must be approved by editors prior to publication. As for format, websites like Kotaku and Polygon are special interest blogs run by professional staff writers and editors. I understand why consensus for the article to be redirected isn't inclined to change because there aren't more sources of this calibre, but I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that the article can still be improved by sources yet to be discovered or cited. When the NYM Gamer source is assessed in conjunction with the quoted articles from TheGamer and GameRant, there is enough coverage to write a short article in my view. PS: MoonJet should have pinged all of the other editors who were involved in the discussion as well, like OceanHok, Zxcvbnm and Sergecross73. Haleth (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure I wasn't pinged because he knows this wouldn't move the needle for me. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was pinged, and it does not move the needle for me either. I still fully advocate Redirecting and covering the character on the main character list for the series. Rorshacma (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the assumption certain editors were watching this discussion as it was. It seems Cat's Tuxedo and Ferret has anyway. I must note that I wasn't for sure whether it would needle Sergecross' stance or not. Though, to be fair, maybe I should have pinged everyone in here.

Also, I don't know if this is reliable (though, they seem to be affiliated with Siliconera and Destructoid) but this source lists Coco among the 10 "great" female characters in video games: https://www.pcinvasion.com/10-great-female-video-game-characters/

They give explanation, and comments on her levels in Crash 3: Warped and the politicism around her. On its own, I agree that it wouldn't establish notability for her, but I do think it establishes notability for her even more so with the NYM Gamer, TheGamer and GameRant sources than without that source. After all, we must also consider the principles on why notability is a thing, like I said above. MoonJet (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This isn't that complicated. "King's redesign of Coco Bandicoot for Crash Bandicoot: On The Run burned my eyes more than shampoo being squirted into them. It makes you scream bloody murder because someone poured some water into the bottle and mixed it up without your knowledge ..." This is not a suitable source for an encyclopedia. The video game space has so many mainstream news sources that cover so many aspects of this major franchise yet our discussion above stretches far into unreliable and opinion sources. It's clear that this character is not covered widely as independent from the ensemble of other characters in the series. So cover it in the ensemble article: List of Crash Bandicoot characters#Coco Bandicoot. czar 14:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was redirect to JS Centre Salif Keita. ✗plicit 23:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Centre Salif Keita[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JS Centre Salif Keita, the team that plays there. This is what we've done for other non notable football stadia. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Joseph. Giant Snowman 10:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to team article as WP:ATD.--Mvqr (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lick[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After pruning YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, and a few self published blogs, we're left with two books -- neither of which proves that the riff is called "the lick" or that it has become a meme, thus violating WP:SYNTH. Extensive searching for variants of "jazz lick meme" only found YouTube compilations, self-published blogs, user-generated memes, and merchandise with the riff printed on it. The Lick is definitely a meme, but it doesn't seem to be one that any reliable sources have picked up on. Deprodded with a WP:SOURCESEXIST rationale. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sure, here's a source from Bass Player (magazine) [2], a mention from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [3] about music memes, an analysis of how licks (including this specific one) are made from the International Society for Jazz Research [4], a published thesis from discussing it from Western Michigan University [5], had a segment on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation [6], and many, many more. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Edit: It's mentioned in the book Decomposition: A Music Manifesto by Andrew Durkin under the chapter "Digital Culture". Why? I Ask (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All but the Bass Player source appear to be self-published. At the very least, the YouTube video is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally none of these are self-published. Don't kid yourself. The YouTube video is literally from an official broadcast news station. Furthermore, even if they were self-published, they were all published by experts in the respective field and fit the criteria for use. (Adam Neely, one of the sources you removed of whom we have a page on, falls under this category, too.) Why? I Ask (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSPYT says that a YouTube video cannot be used as a source. The others are just the author rambling off on their own without any evidence of peer review. Hell, one was done by a student. Do you expect me to believe some student's paper is a reliable source?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read what you linked closely: Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. As it was published by ABC, it inherits the reliability. And academic papers written for a post-graduate degree are vetted by the supervising professors and are generally considered reliable sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. (Someone already pointed this out to you on your talk page.) Why? I Ask (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if some paper "reviewed" by a teacher is notable, then I guess I can insert my old essays from high school as a source now too. What ever happened to the "reliable" part of reliable sources? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing a high school paper to a doctoral dissertation? Why? I Ask (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're both papers made by a student cobbling together other people's work, and reviewed by a teacher. I fail to see how one is a reliable source when the other isn't. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comments at WP:Articles for deletion/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends (2nd nomination), I'd say you are in the minority. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what makes the two different, anyway? It's still just a student. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was able to find it online, it's published. Furthermore, it has been subject a peer review by the scholarly community (e.g., the student's professors, among others). A high school paper is not subject to the same level of rigor and are rarely published. However, even a paper written by a high schooler can theoretically become reliable (if it was published in a reputable academic journal like the Journal of Student Research, for example). Why? I Ask (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can find stuff I wrote in college in 2006 online, too. Doesn't mean it's "published". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does; it is published. But that's just one step necessary to becoming reliable. You still need a peer review (unless, you're somehow already a reputable published expert, within reason). Why? I Ask (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The teacher graded my report in college. That's literally the same thing as a "peer review". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are substantial differences between grading and a scholarly peer review. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...but it's still JUST by a STUDENT. There is literally no way something written BY A STUDENT can be reputable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for context article creator) - As Why? I Ask notes several sources that seem to me to satisfy WP:GNG. This was a creation from a number of years ago that I made, so I have not had a chance to look for sources yet. Regardless, The Lick is a well known meme amongst music circles. Although this does not establish notability this suggests to me that there are likely sources that exist for this so I am !voting keep. I will expand on this soon. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Suggests that there are likely sources". WP:PROVEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I will expand on this soon. I want to acknowledge that I think at this point it is notable enough. However, that may change once it comes to looking for sources. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unable to find any more sources to add to what has been found, however, I think that this topic is notable based on the sources provided. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first source only defines the term "lick" and not "the lick" itself. The second shows the lick as existing but does not prove its notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note "The Lick" as a meme is discussed in decent detail in the book Decomposition, which is listed in "Further reading". IMHO, this article would be much stronger if Durkin's info was worked into the page. (The Middleton citation, on the other hand, is just backing up a definition of a musical lick, so I don't know if I would count it as a reliable mention of the topic.)--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 21:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access the book and tell how extensively it discusses "the lick". Even so, that's still only one source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the book Decomposition has enough information that with even one other RS we could justify the page, given the amount that it seems to discuss it. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Decomposition book, as well as this paper mentioned above, which seems to have been first published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Musicological Society, as well as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation source put me over the edge in this having adequate sourcing. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now realize that the paper linked above was actually published in a different journal, "Jazzforschung/Jazz Research, 2021, Vol. 50.", and a paper from the same research project was published in the Journal of the American Musicological Society.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A YouTube video is literally never a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.", per WP:RSPYT. What makes you feel the specific YouTube video mentioned doesn't fit this criteria? --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...because it's a YouTube video. Nuff said. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete an article based on lack of reliable sourcing and you’re not even willing to engage with site-wide consensus on what constitutes a reliable source? Cerebral726 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So a YouTube video and a college paper written by some random kid are reliable sources now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for the inclusion of the thesis, I haven't weighed in on that. Yes, a YouTube video published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation can be a Reliable source, per WP:RSPYT. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Soreff[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject stubbed the article, but even before that I find no evidence that she's notable as a dancer, teacher or otherwise. The NYT link is just a event listing and a BEFORE identifies only bios of her as a teacher, dancer that are not independent of her. It does not appear that the company is notable either, or should be covered within that. Star Mississippi 16:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Dance. Star Mississippi 16:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very well reasoned deletion argument of star mississippi. Just because you are named dtopped in an event listing in the New York Times does not make you automatically notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eva O'Connor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; self promotion/publicity Twelve73 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:CREATIVE - I quickly added reviews for two more plays, Guardian, Observer, The Irish Times, Irish Independent, NYT, The Irish Times, as well as this 2017 report from The Irish Times with independent content about her and her career. Between these sources and what was already in the article, per WP:CREATIVE, she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work and such work [has] been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. There is also a recent article in the Irish Times about a new work that is subscription-blocked. Based on available sources about her and her career, this article can continue to be developed. Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient evidence of sustained coverage to demonstrate that WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE are met. That being said, the WP:PROMO, WP:NOTREVIEW and WP:NOTMIRROR concerns would ideally be addressed. (Even with recent summarisation, 50% of the article is reprinted mirrors of reviews. (This revision has ~580 words of prose. ~290 of these words are reprints of presumably copyrighted reviews from news sources. Ideally this wouldn't be the case.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that WP:NOTMIRROR or WP:NOTREVIEW applies to brief quotes from reviews, and this article is a little more challenging because the reviews published by secondary sources tend to cover both her work as an actor and as a playwright. That said, these were quick additions, and the article can continue to be developed, including to edit for unsourced WP:PUFFERY. Beccaynr (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like almost every article, there is room for improvement. WP:RATER suggests it should be a B, I don't agree due to style, but it's a better article than the current grading. Anyway, notability is established. I see no reason to delete this article now that it has been improved. CT55555 (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per major improvements to article & sources since nomination. I too disagree with Guliolopez's "Not mirror" & "Not review" comments; quoting from reviews is entirely acceptable. Copyright only starts being a problem if one copies too high a proportion from a single source. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, don't make BLP deletion nominations that assert "self promotion" with no evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence of any Self-Promotion, clearly a notable actress.Nassimela (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Bulk of content comes from established Wikipedia editors. Nwhyte (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also as above. Nominator doesn't seem to have done a proper WP:BEFORE check, and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Löh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any notability criterion D.Lazard (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a German article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Löh

So if she is notable enough for a German article why not an English article? DoesWhateverASpiderCant (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German and English notability criteria need not to be the same. For the criteria of English Wikipedia, see WP:NACADEMIC. This answers your question. D.Lazard (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. Google scholar citation counts are low, as they often are in mathematics, but that means that the most frequent criterion for academic notability, #C1, cannot be justified, and I think the local teaching award does not pass #C2. I did find two zbMATH reviews, one each of her two books, but as such reviews are WP:ROUTINE (zbMATH covers essentially all research-level mathematics publications) I don't think they count much towards WP:AUTHOR notability. The books are not even reviewed in MathSciNet, where coverage would again be considered routine for the same reason. Article creator appears to have been indiscriminately creating articles from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Mathematics; the creation of more biographies on women mathematicians is commendable but that redlist has many names of non-notable mathematicians in it (as the more notable ones have already been picked through) and must be used with great caution and attention towards our notability criteria. For a better selection of missing articles to create I would suggest instead Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships, because the fellowships would mean that most or all of those redlinks would pass #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Citation counts don't look that low for pure mathematics. I'm surprised that two books with the major publisher Springer have not gained multiple reviews. In particular Geometric Group Theory: An Introduction has 81 citations in GS, which usually translates into multiple reviews. Is it possible there are reviews for a German-language edition? ETA PhD dated 2007, so probably just a case of too early in the subject's career. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Having searched around in German, I have not been able to ascertain any more evidence for notability than what has been mentioned before. She does not seem to hold a W3 professorship, which might be considered the German equivalent of a named chair, and there have been no German edition of her books or German language reviews of the same. The zbMATH reviews are at least beyond the sort of routine abstracting they often do, but even if we would consider them adequate they are short of multiple reviews. Therefore it is probably just WP:TOOSOON for an article. Felix QW (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as others have said, seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Past consensus in recent similar cases has been that notability fails even in pure mathematics short of about 3 papers with 100 citations each. (I'm probably a little more inclusive for articles on mathematicians than others here, but this looks well short.) I'm very surprised not to see more reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, but did not succeed in doing better than others here. I would expect the Geometric Group Theory textbook to be notable, as a mid-level textbook in a significant area by a major publisher (and then we could at least redirect to an article on the book), but for Wikipedia this would require reviews or similar. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cooper (Canadian actor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was submitted to BLP PROD, but doesn't qualify as there is a source in the article. However, the only sources in the article are obituaries, and I was unable to find anything else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they've had acting roles — the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about them and their performances in media, establishing that they've been externally validated as significant. But this is referenced solely to an obituary; the two footnotes were deceptive, because they were just two different reprints of the same obituary, so they aren't two separate sources for the purposes of WP:GNG, with the added bonus that one of the two reprints came from an unreliable and non-notability-supporting blog and had to be removed. And even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that may not have Googled well, the only new datapoint I found was a single piece of "local actor retires and comes back home" in his hometown newspaper in 1995, which still isn't enough further coverage to get him over the bar all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this article will expand more of the background of other articles, since Jeff Cooper came out in notorious productions and I believe he has done the necessary roles to be included in the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightning in the sky (talk • contribs) 08:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The notability test for an actor is not "has had roles", it is "has received reliable source coverage about him and his roles in media to establish that said roles were externally validated as significant". There's no such thing as notability without media coverage. And new comments in this discussion go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable as he had a starring role in Circle of Iron, a main role in two Kaliman films from Mexico where played the main title character and a recurring role in Dallas. I've added three sources.

1. Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2018. The book notes about his details and credits such as "Canadian actor Jeff Cooper died in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, on March 24, 2018. He was 84. Cooper was born in Hamilton in 1933. He began his career acting in Hollywood in the early 1960s. He appeared on television in episodes of..."

2. Classic Movie Fight Scenes: 75 Years of Bare Knuckle Brawls, 1914-1989. The book notes his about role and his work in Circle of Iron.

3. Marketing The Well-Furred Chest. The newspaper article notes about his role and his work as Kaliman and his other details. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to major improvement and adding more citations and having a leading role in mentioned film by MoviesandTelevisionFan, notability established.Nassimela (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, His obituaries got published on reliable sources which establishes notability. According to the improvements by MoviesandTelevisionFan now passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Nanpofira (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asnake Getachew Sahilu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No google news results, even with the middle name removed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Ethiopia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Delete’’’. Never cracked the top 300, no SIGCOV found. Jacona (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paitela Kelemene[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one passing mention in The Fiji Times is all that I can find Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wind and Water: Puzzle Battles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prodded by 186.177.155.27 (talk · contribs) with rationale of "not notable". However, the article cannot be prodded as it was previously AFD'd. Result of 2008 AFD was "no consensus". The current sourcing seems pretty thin, but I'm mainly doing this procedurally on behalf of the IP who prodded Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NEXIST. Mobygames page It has a full review in Jeuxvideo [7], a review in GamesRadar+ (#12 on this list), and Man!ac which is a published magazine. There's also a full write-up in TIGSource which was written by Derek Yu, a highly trusted figure within the video game industry. Therefore easily passes GNG and should not be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I say there is still potential that this page can be a notable one within Wikipedia. The main issue that i currently see with the page is that it needs a LOT of massive restructuring and find additional sources that justify the page's viability. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hlaing Myo Aung[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stats stub sourced only to Facebook. English language searches only give us Soccerway and other databases. In Burmese, Google News has no hits. Google has only Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube and other self-published sources. DDG also fails to establish notability. No evidence of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - played for National Team, but no significant success so fails WP:Sportsbasic. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lukuta Malcolm Munyaza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of a non-notable person. Only one source that's actually independent, and it's only a few sentences long. No news results when searching the name. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What should I fix to avoid deletion?

Lukuta Malcolm Munyaza (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An author that writes stuff and an entrepreneur that does business. WP:MILL. No claim of notability. --Pgallert (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability per WP:GNG.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant media notice. Would only be notable if he were Lukuta of Borg. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too many of the sources are by the subject. Of the 3 sources not by the subject, 2 have the same writer. The article is very much promotional, which is par for the course with buzzword filled articles on businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self published author of a single book with no substantial coverage. Fails WP:BLP and WP:NAUTHOR. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Philippine School in Al Khobar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources don't establish notability for an organization per WP:NSCHOOL; one passing mention in an article and a few primary sources. I wasn't able to locate any better sources. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Saudi Arabia. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of secondary sources. Lorstaking 10:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namdhari's Fresh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is some coverage about their possible acquisition and opening of new locations, but no coverage that approaches the level required for corporate notability. Star Mississippi 13:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Companies, and India. Star Mississippi 13:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gjevalin Gegaj[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. Ploni (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced only to the press release of an organization he was on the board of. Being on the board of almost any non-profit is not a sign of notability. Where it is, it is cases where we will be able to find indepdent coverage of the fact, not just press releases from the organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Dalmacci[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NACTOR. No significant roles or contributions. Ploni (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Ploni (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obaid Abusharida[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stats stub on a footballer with only 4 minutes of football to his name who is no longer playing at the professional level. Google News yields two trivial mentions of the subject. This DDG search gives us nothing better; most results being Wikipedia mirrors. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL has been deprecated since this article was created. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet any reasonable inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mesfer Al Najrani[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability in 2020 but this was removed by an IP editor without comment. Sole reason for an article appears to be his one game about 5 years ago. A search in Google News yields only 4 basic squad lists, in which he is mentioned once. A DDG search yields only stats pages, social media and Wikipedia mirrors. WP:GNG doesn't seem to be met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete playing one football game at the level of the game in question is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Second division club football player with no evidence of being included in regular squad. Fails WP:NFOOTY. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DHL Aero Expreso Flight 7216[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable aviation incident. Runway excursions are very common. Cargo flight incidents are also more common....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Costa Rica. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The aircraft suffered hydraulic problems after take-off which led to a emergency landing, where the aircrafts gear collapse, causing it to overrun the runway and breaking in two. Does not appear to be a common runway excursion at this stage. ThePoi (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is not common

Also agree with ThePoi, this one is not runway excursion Emery Cool21 (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry, I Forgot This One Emery Cool21 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this accident was not a typical runway excursion as noted by the fact that the aircraft had broken into two parts during its failed emergency landing and the other reasons stated by ThePoi. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appolinaire Ngueko Tientcheu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has 12 references and 3 external links but not even one of these provide anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Most are single passing mentions or football stats databases. 45fois2 is the best source but this merely states that he is 27, has signed a one year contract and is an attacking midfielder. This is routine coverage at best. Searches in Google News, DDG and ProQuest were completely fruitless. Please note that I have also searched under "Appolinaire Ngueko" and "Appolinaire Tientcheu" as well as the full name and still not had any luck finding significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable footballer which fails WP:GNG; I can't find anything other than trivial coverage in online Spanish-, French-, or English-language sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No national team appearances. No significant club achievements. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samanta Gorzelniak[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person does not meet the notability criteria for authors, scientists, or translators. There is only one published thesis and one published translation. There is no secondary reception of the work. It's not clear why this page should exist in the English Wikipedia as there is no text relating to this person published in English. The publication list lacks ISBN numbers and sources. The page was deleted on the German Wikipedia after a deletion discussion that can be looked up there and that concluded that the notability criteria were not being met. Erdpferd (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

deletion discussion and decision from May 11th, 2022 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/10._April_2022#Samanta_Gorzelniak_(gel%C3%B6scht) Erdpferd (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which ended in deletion I think? No pl wiki article, for the record. Pl wiki, for the record, is pretty inclusive and recognizes anyone with habilitation as notable, but I don't see indication that she has habilitation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion ended in deletion. The discussion was non controversial: only the original author of the article wanted to keep the article, every other person who participated in the discussion agreed that the notability criteria were not met. She has no habilitation, only a dissertation. Erdpferd (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Germany, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of meeting WP:NPROF or WP:NBIO. Not all academics are notable. Google Scholar does not suggest her work has any impact. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A quick Google book search shows interesting results both in German and Englisch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NearEMPTiness (talk • contribs) 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. sigh The message above about a Google book search, which is not signed, is from the article's author. He's been using similar arguments on the German Wikipedia deletion discussion. EDIT: The book search even lists a book that says "Texts of the following authors were not included: Samanta Gorzelniak" as well as books of other people with the same family name.
Erdpferd (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC) UPDATED Erdpferd (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the sake of context, Erdpferd is the one who nominated this article for deletion on de-wiki, and NearEMPTiness, who left the unsigned "keep" comment above, is both the original creator of the de-wiki article and its translator into English on en-wiki. I did not take part in that deletion debate but, having read it, agree that no compelling (or even middling) reasons for Keep were provided. I do not see any interesting results in the Google books search link provided above, but I'd be happy to take a look at a WP:THREE selection of them if anyone really thinks there is WP:SIGCOV in there. -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every academic is notable, and when we have a google book search relying on things like a mention that no work from this writer was included in a publication, we really do not have sources to pass GNG and we have no claim that is even remotely close to passing academic notability. That could change, she is still a fairly early career academic, and it can be fairly long in an academics career before they reach notability, but there is no indication here that she meets any notability guidelines at present, and we cannot predict the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough notable per WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR as per above consensus so far. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stalino, Azerbaijan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, article seems unsure of where the place is. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Azerbaijan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another mass-created stub by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs), who retired and was desysopped over this issue. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete It also went through a name change so current title is no longer applicable either.[8] Mukt (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mitsuru Hattori. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerto (manga)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. - Xexerss (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitsuru Hattori per nom, fails GNG/NBOOK. Since it was not released outside of Japan, looking for sources outside of Japanese is extremely unlikely to yield anything and I couldn't find anything worth noting in Japanese. Link20XX (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mitsuru Hattori since we don’t have enough reliable sources for an article.--70.24.251.91 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mitsuru Hattori. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otogi no Machi no Rena[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. The only citation is (apparently) from the author's own website. - Xexerss (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitsuru Hattori per nom, fails GNG/NBOOK. Since it was not released outside of Japan, looking for sources outside of Japanese is extremely unlikely to yield anything and I couldn't find anything worth noting in Japanese. Link20XX (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—

Redirect to Mitsuru Hattori, there isn’t enough reliable sources for an article.--70.24.251.91 (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After relisting the discussion the responses to the AFD have been to keep the article and since sources are provided to back up the content that view has merit. Note that it was suggested that the article could be retitled (i.e. moved) to focus on the event and circumstances surrounding Figuera's death, but that discussion can be had elsewhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Figuera[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The overall notability of this biographical article is unsubstantiated. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets WP:GNG and has particular importance in the context of the Venezuelan protests. A move to Death of Orlando Figuera can also be considered if there are still doubts about notability. I will try to expand the article and explain further this point soon. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have further expanded the article, a lot compared to the its version when it was first nominated for deletion. In short, Orlando Figuera is arguably the best known case of violence in demonstrations in Venezuela, and has been used as a rallying flag by the Venezuelan government to label opposition demonstrators as violent, fascists, racists, and whatnot. Not only does his death have wide coverage in Venezuela, where he died, but also in Spain and other international outlets that have reported on the protests as well. Pinging nominator @Ari T. Benchaim:. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the rationale provided by NoonIcarus, the subject is enough notable as it passes WP:SIGCOV. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. czar 05:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Brosch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources are primary sources, and a search doesn't pull up much for him online. I don't see notability here personally.

There may be a copyright violation here as well, but I can't figure out based on the dates (this article dates back to feb. 2007, and the first version includes the offending text; the archive of the source page (his about page) is only from 2015, but the main page of his website dates back to sept. 2007 with an archive from then. I'm not sure exactly how to clean this up, but I planned on bringing it to AfD either way. (Earwig) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is no entry into the German Wikipedia about this person. He seems however to be part of lots of other acts here and there. Erdpferd (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be very strange for someone to copy their own website text from wikipedia, so I think the balance of probabilities here is that this is copyvio. Happy to look at a WP:THREE as always - I am finding a lot of passing mentions, or things like this [9] that you can't really call a "passing mention" but isn't WP:SIGCOV by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing I would use to argue for a Keep with though. -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough secondary sources to pass GNG (in that there really are not any). Is it possible the subject or an agent of the subject created both this Wikipedia article and the website at the same time? Which would be even stronger arguments to delete, but it they chose to publish in multiple venues there would not be a copyright issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwani Thakur[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP tagged for citations since May 2012, but I'm not turning up anything. The listed website is defunct, not getting much from google, and by the look of his IMDB page ([10]) it doesn't seem likely that there is much out there that I'm missing. So no WP:GNG, and no SNG appears to apply. asilvering (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. asilvering (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as per WP:BIO. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Middle East. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oman-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the first AfD to be placed in a new delsort for Oman. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the "vote count" here is roughly evenly divided, there is a policy based issue when there are complaints about the article being promotional in nature and being sourced by press releases. In particular WP:NPOV and WP:PROMOTION apply. That Wikipedia shall not be used as promotion for a company is a crucial to Wikipedia's reputation. I have not reviewed all 50 sources in the article, but looking at the sources discussed in this discussion, the issue that they are based on company releases has not been adequately adressed.

For example, looking at three of the sources listed by Nanpofira:

[11] is clearly promotional in nature, containing lines such as "Harnessing AI, CropIn provided technical support to conduct reliable, accurate, and large scale CCE within a short harvesting window and limited manpower."
[12] only mentions Cropin once, and that is a promotional sentence "...SmartRisk and CropIn also equip farmers with accessible intelligence in connection with crop cycle planning and yield maximization."
[13] contains the clearly promotional "CropIn has been able to revolutionise farming by incorporating technology into daily field operation."

As such, the "delete" side have made a clear and convincing argument that the article, as it stands, is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's prohibition against advertising. In theory, an overly promotional tone can be resolved by editorial processes such as stubbing the article and rebuilding based on more neutral sourcing. However, the lack of independent sourcing providded here also creates an unresolved notability issue.

For this reason, I find that the clear policy based issues brought up by the "delete" side remain unrefuted and do indeed mandate deletion in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cropin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as per WP:COMPANY. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Despite 50 references, none meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability, just announcements or articles based entirely on company info, brief mentions and additions to lists. Fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per the reasons given by nom. and HighKing. - Hatchens (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to my understanding the policy WP:COMPANY requires multiple significant coverage in independent and reliable media. Cropin passes this criteria very clearly. To illustrate this, I will like to cite the references from India Government Portal, The Hindu Business Lines, The Financial Express, The Economic Times, The Hindu Business Lines again, The Economic Times again, Agriculture Post, Bloomberg, Economics Times again, Economics Times again , Business World, Live Mint, Forbes India, Livemint again. These must be enough. There are many more references and anyone can verify that. -- Khemotaj (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Khemotaj, you are correct that WP:COMPANY is the appropriate guideline but I don't see how any of those references meets the criteria for establishing notability. NCORP has two important sections - WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. ORGIND defines "Independent content" and say in order to count towards establishing notability, references must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Once you remove that information, whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH. Lets look at your references and when I say the article is "based" on an announcement or infomation provided by the company, it means that there is nothing I can find in the article that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company:

This from IndiaAI] is entirely based and relies on an announcement from the company using quotes and information provided by the company. Fails ORGIND
This from the Hindu Business Line is entirely based on an interview with the CEO. No "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This from Financial Express is a puff profile based on an interview with the founder, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This from India Times is another puff profile based on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND
This next from Hindu Business Line is based on a company announcement and fails ORGIND
This next from The Economic Times is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This from Agriculture Post is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This from The Economic Times is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This next from The Economic Times is likewise based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This from LiveMint is entirely based on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
This from Forbes India is a puff profile entirely based on company information and interview, fails ORGIND
This from LiveMint is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND

Not a single reference contains any "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND) which meets CORPDEPTH. Can you point to any reference and paragraph which you believe meet ORGIND crieria? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighKing, thanks for your detailed analysis. You are very thorough I must admit, but your entire analysis is based on a subjective assumption which is false and thus the entire analysis is flawed. To illustrate, let me repeat what ORGIND says about "Independent content"; it demands references in order to be counted towards establishing notability must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. it also states the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.

Now, if you see, for the content or announcement which are affiliated to the primary entity, which is Cropin here, all the credible media mention such content as press release or sponsored post or something similar. In those cases, all the media houses make a very clear disclaimer that such content do come directly from the entity so they don't take any of its responsibility. The case is entirely different when any news is published under a byline of an independent journalist. Whenever any news is published with byline of a journalists or editor of credible media, they take responsibility of what they are saying, which means it satisfy Wikipedia's requirement of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If I accept your opinion , then no matter what references are there, any entity can always be said as non-notable just because the information published are 'based on announcement'. Now, how can people know something about a company if the company doesn't provide the information? So, every news about any organization be it notable or not comes from the organization at its origin. The concentration should not be on 'based on announcement' because all the company or organizational info irrespective of the kind and nature of the organization happen to come from the respective company or organization. We need to see if the mediation between company information and published news is relaibly mediated or not, you may agree this is how the concept of primary and secondary sources are developed. The concentration rather should be on whether the published news are passing through reliable editorial oversight and in case of all major, respected media like The Hindu Business Lines, Financial Express, Live Mint, Economic Times whenever any news comes out under an independent author's byline, the media house takes the responsibility of the content, which means they are implicitly agreeing that they verify the information, fact checking everything and of course adding independent opinion since writing independently is the fundamental requirement of journalism. Khemotaj (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Khemotaj, that is not correct. The ORGIND section lists a series of what is called "Dependent Coverage" which among other things includes any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources. If a company announces that they're laying off 100 people and it is reported by a journalist that the company is making 100 people redundant, that is not "Independent Content" just because some words were changed. It is not "original and independent", it is regurgitating a company announcement (or quotes or interviews etc). There is no original analysis/investigation/etc carried out by the journalist (which must be *clearly attributable* to a source that is not unaffiliated with the company). The journalist/editor/etc takes responsibility for what is being written only in so far as ensuring that the text accurately reflects the announcement and doesn't report the information incorrectly by (for example) saying the company is laying off 1,000 people when the announcement said 100 people. That is what reliable editorial oversight means in that context. There are examples of "Independent Content" involving company announcements where, for example, the journalist might provide an in-depth opinion on the impact the news might have on the company or their competitors or the industry. We see this when analysts report on companies for example. Finally, you should be aware of the practice of paying for positive news in Indian publications. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi HighKing, thanks again for your response. My argumentations were primarily to dispute your claim that any references "based on" organizational announcements are not independent. Let me extend the argument further and concentrate on the set of references of this article. Firstly, there is a different between based on and entirely based on; so I think very few of the references can be actually accused of Dependent Coverage here in this case. Just at per the ORGIND, if you see this reference from The Hindu Business Lines, is an excellent comparative analysis of agro-tech startups which covers Cropin significantly. Same is true for this article from Forbes India, that discuses a comparative study of competing agro-tech firms from a neutral perspective. I am not sure why this article seemed to be a puff profile to you (did you read the article?). The article is an excellent insightful story on the agro-tech landscape of India and its challenges with the current supply chain mechanism. Also, you will find how Cropin took a very crucial role in digitizing the gigantic project Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana of Governmental of India from this article. Along with these, there are lot more references I can cite which satisfy ORGIND very well. I think you will surely find those if you dig a little more and read the references thoroughly.

Regarding your interpretation about how journalists or media houses declare their responsibilities about the content they produce (only to correspond properly to what they receive from any organization), I must say such conditional interpretation does not hold any logical ground as there are editorial oversights just to ensure that they can confidently take the responsibility of the content fully and wholly. They take the responsibility of the content that they produce under staff editor's byline wholly without any such condition. Lastly, Paid news in India is possibly a real issue apart from the fact that such corrupt practice is known to exist beyond any national horizon [14] [15], but none claimed it to be a widespread practice so I think its a minority phenomenon and it will not be right to try to extend this to generality more importantly when we lack any evidence that such practices affected the concerned references that we are discussing here. Khemotaj (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think we're nearing the end of this discussion. I disagree with what you are saying and for me, your interpretation of what is required falls well short of the reality. For example, this reference from The Hindu Business Lines you say meets NCORP. It doesn't. It has a standard description of the company, mentions some recent company expansion activity and has a quote from the CEO and information provided by the CEO. Once you take away the ORGIND material (and arguably, that just about everything describing the company), the remainder is not enough to meet CORPDEPTH. There is certainly no "comparative analysis" as you claim. Nor is this coverage "significant" in any way. This Forbes India reference profiles a number of companies including Cropin but again, the article relies entirely on information/quotes from the company and has no "Independent Content". This next [Forbes India reference consists of a total of four sentences which are directly linked to Cropin (two of which are credited to the CEO), this is not WP:CORPDEPTH material. Also, Ritu Verma is an investor and therefore is not an unaffiliated source. Perhaps describing it as a "puff profile" is harsh but Cropin themselves describe it as a highlighted mention, nothing more. I cannot understand why you've pointed to the India AI reference seeing as the Government of India is a partner on this project and therefore not unaffiliated, this fails ORGIND. So no, you are merely demonstrating that you don't understand NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. As per WP:SIRS, each individual reference must meet all the criteria (for notability) - both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND at the same time - and none of those references even come close.

Finally, your ideas about newspapers taking responsibility for the content "fully and wholly" is nonsense. In much the same way that a Wikipedia editor takes some responsibility for ensuring that the content in an article is verifiable and referenced correctly, a publisher will only stand over the verifiable accuracy of content, not the veracity of the actual content. You are simply wikilawyering to impose your interpretation that everything a journalist write which isn't a quote therefore meets ORGIND's criteria for "Independent Content" that is clearly from a source unaffiliated with the topic company. That is nonsense and the context of the articles shows it to be so. As I said, there's little point in continuing this discussion, I believe we both understand each other's point of view and have different opinions on interpretation. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable organization having a good amount of activities, works etc. which are covered extensively by credible sources. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP comfortably. Cirton (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirtos67 can you provide a link to any reference that meets NCORP? What I've seen so far fails ORGIND, all based on company announcements/interviews, perhaps I've missed something. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per rationale provided by Khemotaj, passes notability criteria WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORGIND and per guideline WP:THREE. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read the sources Khemotaj cites in a comment above as ORGIND-worthy. They touch different topics, but when it comes to the company, everything they say is directly from the company and the articles are very clear about it. The assertion that those articles pass ORGIND in any manner is plainly wrong. While I haven't gone through every source listed in the article, I agree with the HighKing's assessment above of the handful and do not see any reference that is WP:SIRS. Hemantha (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been updated considerably by me. I have added new references and have added a section that refers to books and journals that discuss about Cropin. There are many books and journals that have extensively discussed Cropin's business model to evaluate different metrics in agro-tech farming in India. I have added only a few to illustrate the point. Khemotaj (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I disagree that the article has been "updated considerably" with some very minor changes and two new references (which adds to the WP:REFBOMB problem as it brings the total of references (mostly announcements and PR) to 53. There's a new "Further readings" section which lists some publications but none have been linked nor have been listed with IBAN or any other identifier. For example, the paper "When Implementation Goes Wrong: Lessons From Crop Insurance in India" doesn't even mention the topic company. The book "Cyber Technological Paradigms and Threat Landscape in India" has a single mention of the company (name) on page 86 in a list of other "AI-related start-ups". The Unleash the Neurons: Design Thinking book is another mention in passing with a standard description. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks The above Response made by HighKing has multiple false claims. Firstly, "When Implementation Goes Wrong: Lessons From Crop Insurance in India" does indeed discuss cropin in page 19 (available in Google Books). Secondly, majority of the books in further reading section has ISBN which is updated now. I have added a set of further books which cover the organization. In fact the book "Socio-Tech Innovation: Harnessing Technology for Social Good" published by Springer has a dedicated chapter on Cropin (Chapter 15, page 289). The Book Innovate India: A Roadmap for Atmanirbhar Bharat published by Bloomsbury Publishing has a detailed case study on Cropin (in Chapter 7). Not sure what else can be required for to establish ORGIND. Khemotaj (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to me a prominent entity with numerous consequential collaborations with Government of India and its states as mentioned in [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Also, there are a good number of prominent media coverage so passes WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Nanpofira (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, and highly promotional. The references are essentially advertisements or press releases--the wikipedia article in its surrent form reads also like a press release, and given the lack of independence of the references, there doesn't seem too be the possibility of writing something better. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. czar 05:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Davies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Prod contested in September 2021 without comment. Tagged for notability since January 2010 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Venezuela. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep based on what I have been able to find and add to the article from my initial search of GBooks - she appears to have received attention over time for her work as a journalist, that indicates WP:BASIC notability is supported. Beccaynr (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having reviewed Ochoa, Ultimas Noticias and NÚÑEZ sources (with the aid of Wikipedia Library and google translate) they appear to provide three good sources. There's also a few offline sources that I assume good faith for. CT55555 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vanessa has worked for several of the main media outlets in Venezuela, as well as coordinator of media and communication for the country's ruling party; not to mention that the article also meets WP:GNG. The article should be kept. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jon Ossoff. this is a complex discussion. However after re-reading the discussion and the sub thread that led to the reversion of the NAC, I find myself in the same place as the original close. There is a clear consensus here that Kramer's notability is intricately tied with that of her husband and no indication she'd have this coverage if not for her work with her husband's campaign and his subsequent role. Whether Cruz or any non-first lady political spouse should have an article doesn't require the same closing here nor should this close as a redirect be a referendum on any other political spouse who may have a notable career. Star Mississippi 16:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Kramer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Completely run-of-the-mill physician resident happens to be married to a U.S. senator. Notability is not inherited. KidAd • SPEAK 17:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, seems like a regular doctor. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG - WP:INVALIDBIO says That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A), and WP:GNG seems supported by sustained and in-depth coverage, e.g. Who is Alisha Kramer? Jon Ossoff’s fiancee (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2017), Alisha Kramer Has Jon Ossoff's Full Support (Bustle, 2017), Dem candidate for Ga. House seat engaged to longtime girlfriend (The Hill, 2017), Democratic candidate for Georgia House seat Jon Ossoff engaged (The Washington Post, 2017), Who is Alisha Kramer? Meet the Jewish doctor married to Jon Ossoff (The Forward, 2021), Jon Ossoff’s wife Alisha Kramer missed his historic win to work in hospital (The Independent, 2021), Sen. Jon Ossoff and Wife Dr. Alisha Kramer Welcome Their First Child: 'Totally in Love' (People, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. and Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.. My my estimation, the Independent article is the only one that addresses Kramer past a trivial mention. KidAd • SPEAK 23:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the two "Who Is Alisha Kramer?" sources are clearly more than trivial mentions because the articles focus on her as the topic directly and in detail, similar to the other articles with her name in the headlines. The Hill and WaPo sources also report on her story, with her biographical details included, so these do not seem like trivial mentions of her. WP:BASIC also states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and this guideline seems to help support notability because of the combined depth available in the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, a counterfactual analysis (would this person be notable if she weren't married to Jon Ossoff?) is very clearly no. WP:NOT INHERITED applies here. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jon Ossoff per WP:NOT INHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO. The example given in the latter, Jason Allen Alexander, is instructive. While some sources can be found which expound on the subject, he is only notable for being briefly married to Britney Spears. Another good example of this is Robert Ashton Jr., a thoracic surgeon who, while being borderline noteworthy himself, is only really notable for being the late husband of Jennifer Ashton. If the question was asked, Would this article's subject have achieved an article if not for being married to Ossoff? the answer is no. StonyBrook _babble 00:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears was married to Alexander for 55 hours, so perhaps he has not been the subject of sustained and in-depth coverage similar to what Kramer has received on a state and national level for her biography and career - WP:GNG determines notability for each BLP subject, per the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline and the WP:NOT INHERITED essay. Beccaynr (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted from INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); But you left out the next 2 sentences: relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. Now granted, I guess it depends on how we read that semicolon, which is used to link related sentences. I understand it to mean that if the significant coverage comes only as a result of the relationship (as in our case) then it gets cancelled out. To me, that is the only reading that makes sense, for otherwise it goes against the principle stated hitherto. The guideline's authors were probably thinking of a case such as Robert John "Mutt" Lange who, while clearly outshined by Shania Twain still remains super-notable on his own. And while you offered a good retort to the Alexander case, what would you say in the Ashton case, another doctor married for a long time and subject to reliable sources only due to his spouse [Add: and yet has no article of his own]? Had he not been married to Jennifer, would his life achievements and death have been notable? I think not. StonyBrook _babble 01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources are always the key consideration - the WP:NOTINHERITED essay also says, The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. I was not able to quickly find an example from my AfD history, but I recall a discussion about a wife of an ambassador where I !voted delete because sustained and in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources did not appear to exist. However, that type of article seems like a good example of an WP:INVALIDBIO with notability only asserted due to the relationship. From my view, the semicolon in the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline is not a caveat that disqualifies significant coverage if it exists, because of the word "unless" in the part of the sentence that precedes it. Beccaynr (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the NOTINHERITED quote above, and for that matter, the INVALIDBIO quote, I think it is fair to presume that GNG and significant coverage in these cases refers to sources that cover the subject on their own merit, with no mention of how they were only noticed due to the relationship they had with the notable family member. Having to depend on sources which heavily mention this connection (as we see in this case) seems to defeat the whole premise of the aforementioned guideline/essays. This reasoning fits with Alexander, Ashton and Lange (who besides for being a record producer, is also divorced and on his own) while this article is the anomaly. Adding: Even the Lange article depends a lot on Shania sources, but there are others: https://www.economist.com/prospero/2020/07/23/for-back-in-black-the-secret-of-success-was-mutt-lange But more to the point, there is no way that those articles could ever be merged. StonyBrook _babble 03:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the guideline and essay did not prioritize WP:GNG, and instead was used to disregard coverage of anyone covered primarily due to their relationship with a more-famous person (despite both the guideline and essay implying this coverage should not be disregarded) we might lose the Doug Emhoff article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emhoff is not a good reason to keep this article. In WP:NOTINHERITED we read, Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. (emphasis mine). It is obvious that First Gentleman carries as much weight as First Lady — it even redirects there. We don't attribute the same weight to senatorial or gubernatorial spouses. Iris Weinshall has an article because she is a public servant, nothing at all to do with Chuck Schumer. StonyBrook _babble 16:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think attempts to rely on perceived technicalities to override WP:GNG are not helpful for this discussion, and I have expressed my view about WP:GNG as well as I can, so I do not plan to continue participating in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; meets WP:GNG as in Beccaynr's long list of non-trivial articles from perfectly respectable sources that are very much about the subject. --GRuban (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. If someone is only discussed in the context of their relationship with someone else, and in the absence of very substantial, sustained, encyclopedic biographical coverage, they should not have a standalone article. The content present in the sources does not support an individual claim to notability, and the purpose of an encyclopedia isn't to document the unremarkable education and career of everyone related to a famous person. Being able to write a couple paragraphs of basic background info -- something that could be done for just about anyone in a professional field -- doesn't mean anything if there is nothing noteworthy to report beyond that. We regularly redirect nonfamous people to their wiki-notable spouses (e.g. Barry Nobles to Caroline Buchanan), this is perfectly reasonable here too. JoelleJay (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WP:AADD essay suggests we avoid certain types of arguments in favor of deletion, such as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST (i.e. The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article) and subjective importance (i.e. A common misconception about notability is that importance or uniqueness equals notability), and I continue to think the guidelines ask us whether WP:GNG is sufficiently supported for this high-profile subject who has received sustained and in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources. Based on the available sources, she was directly featured in Ossoff's campaign and has been the focus of news coverage, and we have more than basic background information, because she has not been a trivial afterthought in the reporting. Beccaynr (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve made your opinion clear. Don’t WP:BLUDGEON the process. KidAd • SPEAK 16:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I was just commenting as you made this comment that I have no interest in engaging in wikilawyering and feel I have made my position as clear as I can. Beccaynr (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST means We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. It does not apply to, "We do not have an article on y because y is not notable, so we should not have an article on this because this is also not notable. If an article written about Robert Ashton Jr. were sent to AfD, I would !vote to delete, even though both he and Kramer are "high-profile" as you put it. And trying to correctly interpret the guidelines and apply them to articles is not "wikilawyering". StonyBrook _babble 16:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she meets GNG. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JoelleJay. The coverage here is trivial, and it ultimately falls back on her relationship with Jon Ossoff.-KH-1 (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I'm with JoelleJay on this one. I do think Beccaynr has found significant coverage of this person, but it's not an individual claim to notability - she has a greater than normal amount of press coverage compared to a non-famous person, because of her relationship to a famous person. The greater volume of press coverage hasn't really shown that she is an unusually notable person for any other reason. The press coverage exists mostly as a PR function for a politician, not because the press has noticed something notable she has done. -- asilvering (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Barbara Bush is also solely due to significant coverage because of her relationship to husband and sons. Unlike what User:StonyBrook says about Heidi Cruz, below, our article about Barbara Bush clearly says she was not a politician, and stayed far away from campaigning. Yet clearly we need an article on her. Alisha Kramer hasn't gotten Barbara Bush levels of coverage, so doesn't need one of Barbara Bush's size, but she has gotten coverage, so does need an article. --GRuban (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, I quoted above from WP:NOTINHERITED: Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. Bush was a First Lady, while Kramer is not. StonyBrook _babble 12:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. We've also got Stanley Armour Dunham and Madelyn Dunham, only notable as the grandparents of a president, which I'm pretty sure is not a public position, Lolo Soetoro, only notable as stepfather of a president, likewise, Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, only notable as the mother of a president... pretty clearly WP:NOTINHERITED is subject to selective enforcement. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? But while we're at it, I think a case could be made to keep those articles. Being the rockstars that they are, there is a lot of public interest in presidential relatives, especially, but not only, recent ones (see Billy Carter). But a line has to be drawn somewhere. StonyBrook _babble 13:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator No different than the likes of Heidi Cruz, a notable woman in her own way but all of that attention comes from being married to a Senator or in this case the fact that they weren’t married. Kramer can be notable in her own right garnering reliable sources and the sources will still center coverage on being married to the youngest Senator. Nothing one can do about that but hope for slightly less lazy or sexist journalism practices. So, I can't understand using inherited notable here as a measure while people like John Lennon's non-notable aunt and uncle have articles too. We managed to make 2,000 words of prose here, not a stub. Trillfendi (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Heidi Cruz (and the AfD discussion), I am not entirely sure that article should have been kept as a standalone either. Be that as it may, there is still a big difference between these two articles. Cruz, the wife of a senator who was also a major presidential candidate, is also something of a politician herself, campaigning extensively for her husband, and securing positions for herself during the Bush presidency. Kramer is not a politician, and her husband is not a presidential candidate, so no comparison there. As far as Mimi Smith goes, don't even try comparing Ossoff to John Lennon—they are not even in the same universe. In addition, the Cruz and Smith content cannot be merged into their respective parent articles without creating balance issues, whereas our short article has no such obstacle. You said, Kramer can be notable in her own right garnering reliable sources and the sources will still center coverage on being married to the youngest Senator. Well, if the sources are centered on her being married to Ossoff, doesn't it follow then that she is not notable in her own right? StonyBrook _babble 11:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Heidi Cruz is notable for essentially taking leave of absence from her job to tag along on her husband's (I can't call it entirely unsuccessful because he did win a primary) campaign and use her platform to fundraise and occasionally make speeches about his character, I don't see how Kramer isn't notable for receiving more or less the same significant coverage for being in her husband's campaign. Not many resident physicians get international coverage with their name in the headline. Trillfendi (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect, no independent notability. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had originally closed this as redirect, with the following comment: The result was redirect to Jon Ossoff. No convincing refutation that the preponderance of reliable sources only cover the subject in the context of the their relationship to a notable politician. Per a talk page request, I am self-reverting and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beccaynr asked for an explanation of my closure and following that asked for a relist and admin close. FWIW, this is the explanation I gave: "In terms of process, I emphasise, I have only looked at the discussion itself and drew a conclusion from that. WP:INVALIDBIO was a strong argument. But added to that, I think the counter-factual argument (would this person have an article not for their marriage?) gave the redirect argument substantially more weight. Neither the INVALIDBIO nor the counter-factual arguments were directly refuted by detailed source analysis (as against vague waves) which is what would have been required to counter-refute them (if possible). Further, the specific examples of other spouse-redirects were convincingly applied as similar in this case." While I reaffirm that opinion, as a NAC, I feel Beccaynr made a reasonable request on the basis of a different interpretation and the need for further discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Beccanyr's point about NAC, even though Goldsztajn seems to be on par with admins in regards to closing AfDs, even contentious ones. But in this edit, it appears that WP:CANVASSing has occurred. StonyBrook _babble 07:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment StonyBrook, it looks like I could have added more clearly neutral wording about seeking clarification on how to interpret the guideline. From my view, for a guideline independent of WP:GNG, such as WP:NPROF, examining similar AfDs can be helpful because notability is not necessarily determined by significant coverage. However, lining up WP:OSE for an article that should be assessed by WP:GNG (e.g. per WP:INVALIDBIO, i.e. "unless significant coverage exists" and WP:NOTINHERITED, i.e. "can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG") without examining whether significant coverage exists for each WP:OSE, appears to be a subjective and unhelpful exercise for assessing notability per our guidelines. A more detailed analysis of the sources may be helpful for determining whether WP:SIGCOV exists here, so I created a source assessment table that I think helps show there is significant coverage over time that supports a standalone article:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Who is Alisha Kramer? Jon Ossoff’s fiancee (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 2017)	"We have requested an interview with Kramer, but for now, here's what we can glean from social media and our own reporting"		Begins with her education, starting in kindergarten, includes college, studying abroad and later research trips, and current study of medicine. Includes brief background about her parents. Includes reason for current residence and impact on Ossoff. Also notes college Ultimate Frisbee, including writing.	✔ Yes
Alisha Kramer Has Jon Ossoff's Full Support (Bustle, Apr. 2017)		Editorial Standards, e.g. "If a BDG article is sponsored content or produced by the BDG branded content team — and is therefore not produced by the BDG editorial team — it is clearly labeled as such."	~ secondary context includes, "After The New Yorker reported that Ossoff doesn't live in the district he is running to represent because he is living with his girlfriend outside district lines, there have been a lot of questions about Ossoff's girlfriend, Alisha Kramer." Discusses the length of their relationship, her previous education and study abroad, her writing for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, current education, and includes commentary: "I for one find it refreshing to see that a male politician is publicly acknowledging that women don't have to give up their own careers to support their partner's aspirations."	~ Partial
Dem candidate for Ga. House seat engaged to longtime girlfriend (The Hill, May 2017)			~ includes "Because of his girlfriend’s prominent role in the campaign, Ossoff has faced direct questions about when the longtime couple plans to tie the knot." Includes reference to CNN interview with Ossoff that included a focus on her. Also notes length of their relationship, where she grew up and attended and attends school.	~ Partial
Democratic candidate for Georgia House seat Jon Ossoff engaged (The Washington Post, May 2017)			~ Also notes April CNN interview with Ossoff that included a focus on Kramer, and states "Kramer has been a steady presence throughout Ossoff's campaign."	~ Partial
Who is Alisha Kramer? Meet the Jewish doctor married to Jon Ossoff (The Forward, Jan. 2021)			Begins with high school education, includes college, two years of work at "a Washington, D.C. think tank", then medical school. Notes and quotes her 2019 testimony at the "Georgia State Senate in opposition to the state’s new restrictions on abortion." Includes her role during Ossoff's campaign, e.g. "During the campaign, in which health care and responses to the coronavirus pandemic have been topics of contention, she’s conducted online town halls alongside Ossoff — filming this one after finishing an overnight shift at the hospital." Discusses political impacts of 2017 residence, CNN interview, engagement, her inclusion as a focus of a National Republican Senatorial Committee "online attack". Also notes she was working on election night 2021, "Because it’s 2021, and that’s what a political spouse does."	✔ Yes
Jon Ossoff’s wife Alisha Kramer missed his historic win to work in hospital (The Independent (Jan. 2021)			~ In addition to noting her working on election night, also notes, "Dr Kramer has featured heavily in ads for the Ossoff campaign as an authority on Covid." Discusses her education, testimony at the Georgia State Senate, her personal experience with Covid-19.	~ Partial
Sen. Jon Ossoff and Wife Dr. Alisha Kramer Welcome Their First Child: 'Totally in Love' (People, Dec. 2021)			~ She does not appear to be considered trivial as a parent to their child, including in the headline and quotes from Ossoff, Sen. Warnock, and Sen. Merkley.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Beccaynr (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still firmly in favor of a redirect. The AJC article explicitly regurgitates details from her LinkedIn and a blog profile in one of its routine, formulaic "Who is X, husband/wife of Y?" special interest plugs. Here's an equally-detailed one about Angela Akins, wife of Sergio Garcia; another one titled "Who is Noor Mateen, wife of the Orlando mass shooter?"; and "Who is Derek Bottoms, husband of Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms?"; "Who is Alicia Etheredge? 5 things to know about Bobby Brown's wife"; and "Who is Craig Coyne? What to know about Barbara Bush's new husband"; "Who is Mary Beth Smart, Georgia football coach Kirby Smart’s wife?"; and "Who is Lauren Hashian? 5 things to know about Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson’s wife"; and "Who is Angie Macuga, wife of Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank?". All of these are, at most, redirects to their actually-famous spouse. This is not in-depth coverage supporting independent notability, it's mundane trivia scraped from the subject's own social media. The article in Forward is of the same journalistic caliber and style (and one of many such "Meet X, [Jewish] husband/wife of Y" articles in its "Schmooze" section), and to an even greater extent focuses on her relationship with Ossoff rather than her achievements. What little it has to say about her specifically is essentially redundant with what is found in the AJC.

Kramer just has no independent claim to notability; it would not be DUE to include anything more than "an OB/GYN physician" in the personal section of Ossoff's page because she is not known for anything outside their relationship. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think what you did can fairly be described as canvassing. As for this source table, I find it convincing evidence that, as JoelleJay has said above, she has no independent claim to notability. She is married to a politician, but is otherwise a normal doctor - one barely out of medical school. If we discount "is wife of x" as a notability claim, we're left with her career (not much yet - she's only been an MD for four years), or her independent media appearances (none in this chart). She's well-positioned to become notable in the future, but right now what she's known for is helping to get her husband elected. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One reason I created the source assessment table was to expand on my previous comment about her high-profile role in the campaign, which multiple independent and reliable sources noted, including her role in town halls and campaign ads. She also was a topic in The New Yorker and CNN, and there is commentary about the 'worthy of notice' elements of her role, including the residence issue while she was in medical school and how it was perceived (and also used in a political 'attack'), as well as her career independent of Ossoff, e.g. "Because it’s 2021, and that's what a political spouse does." The sources do not appear to consider her a 'normal' doctor, or a 'normal' political spouse, and these unusual aspects have received coverage over time, with in-depth biographical information that we look for when building BLPs. Beccaynr (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little history lesson. The February 2016 version of WP:INHERIT read: Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. (emphasis mine) Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability." Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. For instance, being married to the Governor of Arkansas does not make the spouse notable, whereas being married to the President of the United States typically does, after 1932 at least. (emphasis mine) Being the fifth cousin of a President of the United States does not make a person notable (unless the fifth cousin in question goes on to become President himself). Then along came a sockpuppet account that opened a discussion contesting this wording at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 13 § Political spouses (and relatives of Celebrities), at the conclusion of which it was decided to take this wording out. That same sockpuppet account later went on to use this new wording in the Heidi Cruz AfD discussion to great effect, getting the article kept, when I am not so sure that it should have been. So, in contrast to the above accusation of "wikilawyering", my contention is that the correct wording was "jumbled" unnecessarily, resulting in the current misunderstandings. In short, I would be in favor of reinstating the original wording, or at the very least interpreting the essay in a way that reflects the original wording, with the result that this article gets redirected. StonyBrook _babble 18:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even under a stricter standard that is not currently supported by consensus in an essay nor reflected in the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline, it seems clear Kramer is considered notable "in her own right" because of the reporting focused on her, her high-profile role in Ossoff's campaign, as well as her career and education (including as it relates to his campaign, not only because of it, and not simply 'culled from her social media'). From my view, we need to assess the sources, and avoid subjective determinations of whether an individual is important enough to warrant an article.

If WP:GNG is supported, and there is no policy basis to conclude it is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, then there does not appear to be a valid basis in the policies or guidelines to delete or redirect. I used the term 'wikilawyering' to describe my impression of what seems like an attempt to override the GNG by requiring subjective assessments of importance, because that seems to undermine the underlying principles and language of the guidelines.

WP:GNG notability is determined by the sources and whether there is independent and reliable significant coverage over time. There appears to be no guideline that allows us to discount significant coverage because of a relationship with a notable individual. WP:INVALIDBIO tells us to delete or redirect when an article asserts notability based only on the relationship, when significant coverage does not exist. Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... it seems clear Kramer is considered notable "in her own right" because of the reporting focused on her, her high-profile role in Ossoff's campaign, as well as her career and education (including as it relates to his campaign, not only because of it ... On the contrary; it is very clear that no one would have taken any notice of this person, her career or education had it not been for her husband, as you yourself seem to admit. As far as the guideline/essay is concerned, consensus can change, including through regular editing. As it stands now in this AfD, the supermajority opinion is that the article subject needs to be independently notable, or, as you put it, "notable 'in her own right'". If the matter of the guideline/essay were to be brought up at the talk page, Village Pump, RfC or similar, with inclusion of the details regarding the shady process in which the language was changed, I dare say that it would be rolled back to the previous version. If that would not be the case, then WP:INVALID and WP:INHERENT might as well be scrapped entirely, in favor of a free-for-all inclusion of all political spouses. Being that these people are public individuals, bits of coverage can be scraped together about any of them. StonyBrook _babble 21:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to continue going around in what feels like circles at this point, so I only want to clarify that it seems clear to me (and others in this discussion) that "no one would have taken any notice of this person... had it not been for her husband" is not a reason to discount significant coverage, per the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline, which specifically explains that notability of a subject based on a relationship with a notable individual is valid if the subject has received significant coverage. Per the guideline, as well as the current version of the related essay, we do not create articles simply because someone is related to a notable individual, because for most people related to notable individuals, significant coverage is required. Beccaynr (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of her (entirely routine and expected) role in Ossoff's campaign/career can easily be mentioned in a couple sentences on Ossoff's page. That is to say, basically everything about her that is considered "worthy of note" can more justifiably be considered coverage of her husband (like his residency issues, or commentary on how long they dated). The only things that are left are clearly not encyclopedic (standard activities of the average early-career physician), and those basic details are quite explicitly scraped directly from her/her husband's social media and run in tabloid-esque article series. We could make just as strong a case for every congressperson's spouse and any adult children who took part in their campaign; in fact, we could use that level of coverage to justify articles on every political candidate. If Ossoff hadn't been elected but she had still received the same coverage, would we have an article on her? No, obviously not: because her only claim to notability is inherited through her husband's fame, not through her involvement in his campaign or her own MD work. JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I beginning to wonder if we've got enough for a minyan, yet. :) Being serious though, I've not seen anything new added since the relisting which would cause me to change my view that led me to make my earlier close. However, I wanted to add one point: potentially another way to look at this issue is through WP:CFORK; this is a content fork of Ossoff and we do not have satisfactory grounds to justify WP:SPINOFF. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coverture has been abolished in the United States, and the sources focusing on Kramer would create an WP:UNDUE weight problem per WP:SPINOFF because they offer enough detail and depth, including about her independence from her husband. If she had not been a medical student, she would not received the earlier coverage, and if she had not been a doctor, she would not have had the high-profile role she had in his campaign. The coverage is not trivial, nor tabloid or scraped from his or her social media, and the volume and depth of the coverage focusing on her as an independent person is significant. Beccaynr (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first word of your first sentence indicates to me that you are missing the entire point of the discussion. This AfD is not about which gender is superior to the other. It is about which spouse is deserving of an encyclopedia article and which one is not. You also wrote ... if she had not been a doctor, she would not have had the high-profile role she had in his campaign. What does being a doctor, or being any other kind of professional for that matter, have to do with being a good campaigner for your spouse? About Bryon Noem the insurance salesman we read, In a TV ad released during his wife’s run for governor in 2018, Bryon Noem said, “The thing about Kristi I admire the most is her work ethic. It doesn’t matter what she’s doing; if she’s fixing fence, saddling a horse, or working in Congress, nobody will outwork her. She doesn’t quit until she’s done, and that’s the way she’s always been. Bryon the "high profile campaigner" doesn't get an article, even if he would be a resident physician. StonyBrook _babble 10:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my reference to coverture (e.g. the lack of legal independence from a husband) is understood as anything other than a comment on the only issue I have tried to focus on during this discussion, which is the WP:GNG and whether there is significant coverage, as required by WP:INVALIDBIO for an independent article. I also tried to respond to the subjective "she is run-of-the-mill in my personal opinion, so I will not count the independent and reliable sources supporting GNG" and "she is a wife with no independence from her husband in my personal opinion, so I will not count the independent and reliable sources supporting GNG" parts of the discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AJC article explicitly says it took info on her global health career from her LinkedIn and her blog bio, the same way it cites facebook posts and tweets for coverage of all the other non-notable spouses it "profiles". This isn't some hard-hitting journalism where they interviewed her or researched the impact she had and then wrote up their own independent commentary; they literally just restate basic factoids from her social media. Any coverage mentioning her being a med student was strictly in the context of her husband's residency; there was nothing notable about what she was doing at Emory. Same goes for her medical career: she could be in literally any profession or no profession at all and would get equivalent coverage for being the partner of a politician.

Also, the article as it stands now is entirely imbalanced, presenting her relationship with Ossoff as if it's a side note to her "notability" rather than the sole reason for it. Would she have gotten any coverage whatsoever for her medical work or her involvement in his campaigns if she was not with Ossoff? Absolutely not, and that should be the deciding factor for whether she is independently notable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AJC article, as quoted in the source assessment table, says "We have requested an interview with Kramer, but for now, here's what we can glean from social media and our own reporting". That the article is imbalanced is not a reason for deletion, because it can be improved with the sources, and her relationship with Ossoff is not a disqualifier, per WP:INVALIDBIO. The guideline does not require so-called independent notability separate from the relationship, and permits someone who has received significant coverage to have their own article even if the coverage arises because of their relationship. She is a notable partner of a politician, due to the significant coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, That the article is imbalanced is not a reason for deletion, because it can be improved with the sources. Yes, the imbalance can be improved with sources. However, not the kind that say "Kramer is a survivor of COVID-19" or "Kramer is an opponent of vaccine hesitancy". We would need the kind of sources that say "Kramer discovered the cure for cancer" or "Kramer is the 26th United States Secretary of Health and Human Services" (except, you know, WP:CRYSTAL). StonyBrook _babble 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, I voted delete, but agree with Goldsztajn's closure as redirect.-KH-1 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. WP:BLP1E: This person testified for Georgia's bill. Cover it within the context of the bill's article or within Ossoff's article. All coverage in this Kramer article is written in context of her connection with Ossoff, not independent of it. Our coverage strives to be proportionate to that of reliable sources. czar 14:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naranjo Museum of Natural History[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG. This "museum" of 56 items is the personal collection of one individual. The only ref is a hyper-local small town newspaper. MB 00:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Texas. MB 00:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded it. Sourcing remains slightly thin, but I think it meets WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 01:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Between coverage of the museum and its founder [21] WP:GNG is met and there is adequate sourcing to create a decent article, even if short. Wikipedia should not pedantically list every dinosaur bone or exhibit at the museum (dino fans can be sometimes prone to excessive enthusiasm). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by --Animalparty! and Star Mississippi. Just because the page is thin does not mean that it should be deleted. There are many stub pages on here and this page is no different from that. Historyday01 (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnimalParty!. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Star Mississippi and AnimalParty!. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ameer Kotecha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E, a little coverage related to the idea of a dedicated pudding. Most refs about the competition just mention that with no in-depth sig coverage of Kotecha. Many of the refs are pieces written by Kotecha and thus do not contribute to notability. MB 00:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. MB 00:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the same COI editor, User:KeyBlue1136, is also responsible for Jason Christopher Kelly, also a pudding-related puff piece. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Many trivial mentions are found but none meeting GNG. The Platinum Pudding Competition may be notable but not Ameer Kotecha. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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