Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 August 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh-Cossack War (1709–1724)[edit]

Kazakh-Cossack War (1709–1724) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This time, removal with a discussion, as I mentioned: the time frame of the conflict is taken out of the head, the term does not exist in science, small clashes are called a full-fledged war. Kazman322 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Without more info, this seems to be a rush to deletion. The article is a week old and appears to have valid, sourced info (I don't read the languages in question). Sources should be hammered out by nominator and other editors in the article and its Talk -- a Talk that is currently completely blank, so no real attempt has been made. If proponents cannot overcome the objections of the nominator, then come back to AfD. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) With more info, this is a very strong Delete for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In fact, considering the distortion of facts uncovered by Kazman322 and Kges1901, I am extremely concerned about the potential lack of WP:GF with an eye toward WP:V, WP:HONEST and WP:NOTFALSE. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can analyze the sources cited in the article

1) Erofeeva, who does not speak about the whole war of Kazakhs and Cossacks, only mentioning the raid of Abulkhair as a separate fact. 2) The second source already uses the term Kazakh-Cossack war (Казахско-казачья война), Its author is a certain professor Abdirov. At the same time, a cursory search on Google Scholar or Google Books does not give any results. We can safely assume that the term is an invention of Abdirov and the separation of clashes into a full-fledged war is not popular in historiography. Abdirov himself, judging by the second source, is biased towards the Dzungars and from somewhere he takes the fact of Russia's military assistance to the Dzungar Khanate. At the same time, in historiography, the invasion of the Dzhungars in 1723 does not in any way come into contact with the attack of the Cossacks from the west, this is a strange compilation. 3) The fifth source is a book, no pages indicated, just a book. 4) In the last source, Abdirov says that the Kazakh-Cossack war lasted 200 years (I remind you that this is his personal term, which is not mentioned anywhere else), but the author takes a strange time frame of twenty years and inserts it into the title. From which we can conclude that the article is an excerpt from the works of Abdirov, who coined a term that is unpopular anywhere, called minor clashes a full-fledged war, and the author of the article simply retold his vision of the world. And the author also compiled some other events of these collisions. Note that the article contains the term Kazakh-Russian war which is not mentioned at all in the sources. Kazman322 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • Even if you pay attention to the content of the article, the intervals of clashes are several years, that is, all these are separate incidents that are not distinguished in science into a single conflict. Kazman322 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The author of the article realized and changed the time frame of the war to another random date, that is, the article and its concept are invented before our eyes. Kazman322 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abdirov appears to be a credible historian, but parts of the article disort the sources to record events as a Kazakh victory. Source four is a Kazakh eighth grade textbook that says Abul Khair's forces were driven back with significant losses by Russian troops, the opposite of the article's claim. Roudik (source 5) doesn't support what he is cited for, and actually describes the ambush of a Russian peace expedition to Khiva, while not mentioning Kazakh actions at all. Judging from Abdirov's work, there was definitely conflict, but we don't need an article that blatantly distorts sources to exaggerate Kazakh successes. Kges1901 (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 13 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh campaigns of 1843–1844[edit]

Kazakh campaigns of 1843–1844 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I mentioned earlier, the event in science is not distinguished in any way, the uprising is not divided into such a period of time, the date is invented. The article was created in order to have the column "Kazakh victory" in the infobox Kazman322 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get second opinions on the Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A Redir implies that there is someone, somewhere, who will search for this term. I agree with Kazman322 that the term itself is unattested and thus unlikely to ever be a search string. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dar El Agha Mosque[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 17:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{vd}} THe only source is a book from 1939 and I can't see reliable and independent sources to meet the notability guidelines.--Nanahuatl (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2023 (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. General concerns about NACADEMIC are best discussed at the talk page of that guideline (see also WP:CONLEVEL). Most participants seem to agree that the currently-accepted thresholds are verifiably met. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 21:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rubin (policy analyst)[edit]

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

Non-notable political commentator, does not meet WP:N. Google search pulls up the numerous opinion pieces written by the subject, but no independent/secondary source talking about her. Sabih omar 20:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are strong views on both sides. I am concerned and agree with User:Necrothesp's comment that early participants and maybe even the nominator might be confusing this article subject with a different Jennifer Rubin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 13 August 2023 (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 Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. There isn't clear consensus for a "not to be confused with" style merger, however the history remains if there's particular material worth adding. Star Mississippi 11:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings[edit]

The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See below TSventon (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPHB appears to be a limited company that existed between 2007-2011 run by a family in Scotland to raise money for their castle. [2] If there was an earlier organisation of the same name I cannot find any evidence of its existence or its relationship to the company. The article was created by Mph259, the initials of one of the people who ran the company - their only other contribution to Wikipedia was to Islam in Mexico and the same person in the company wrote a chapter in an academic book about Islam in Mexico, which is further evidence of their identity and an obvious conflict of interest. If you google "Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings" it comes up with a few references, but they invariably seem to be confusing it with a different organisation Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. For example this article [3] says "The same belief in the vital importance of heritage protection also led to the founding of other organisations such as the Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings (SPAB)..." As they have specified SPAB they undoubtedly mean the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. An IP address (judging from contributions probably connected to Mph259) added that it was "noted" in a 1969 architectural journal - again it may be a case of confusion with SPAB (I don’t have access to the article). Apart from Mph259 and the IP address, no editors have contributed anything to the article except for formatting, punctuation, etc. and it gets virtually no hits and has no links from other articles, except user pages. It therefore seems to have been created as an advertisement for a short-lived company and has no notability. Johnbod removed the notification of deletion tag, suggesting a merger instead. However the company has no connection with The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), so there would be no content to merge. Southdevonian (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The natural confusion, which you mention, is enough to justify a couple of lines in a section at the bottom. If this supposed to be an Afd nom? this is not how you do them. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment Johnbod. Yes, it is supposed to be an Afd nomination - the first time I have attempted one. Perhaps you can tell me where I have gone wrong? Southdevonian (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion , and look at a couple of other ones first. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already read that page and obviously missed something - but thank you for your suggestion Johnbod. Southdevonian (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings is also used as a translation of da:Foreningen til Gamle Bygningers Bevaring. TSventon (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which seems to be quite a large and old bygningsbevaringsforening (great word). That could go in the same section. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had a more thorough look at the Google results for "Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings" and will revise what I said before about invariably confusing it with "Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings" (SPAB). Google comes up with about 48 results. Some of them are mirror sites of Wikipedia and Companies House or lists garnered from them, including an academic article that copies Wiki text. Some are translations of foreign organisations, for example a Dutch organisation. Some are local American organisations, for example, the Montachusett Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings. Two refer to fictional characters. That leaves four certain or almost certain examples of confusion (including one gossip website), plus four probable or possible examples. I do not see that as enough to justify a redirect or mention in the article about SPAB. There is just one thing that still worries me - whether there ever existed a small local 19th-20th century organisation with the name "Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings", which might explain one of the possible examples of confusion. But there is nothing in the British Library Catalogue or the National Archives Catalogue. Southdevonian (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest version of the article begins The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings was founded in 1858 in Leicestershire and was a pressure group established to oppose the demolition of the country house known as Danet's Hall by the Leicester Freehold Land Society. The group purchased the lordship of the manor and used this to exert pressure to attempt to prevent the hall's demolition, without success., which might be true, but is unsourced. TSventon (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge/Redirect to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings or if straight out Deletion is called for here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same relisting comment as before. Just seeking a bit more clarity on ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There's certainly an organisation with this name that precedes the 2007–2011 reincarnation. Found mentions in UK newspaper reports in the 1950s, 60s and 70s - but only mentions. One report referred to the Royal Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings. The Journal of Architectural Education reference is a name check only of the earlier entity. Don't think the sourcing stands up to a merge as reliability is unclear and there's no indication the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings is related. Rupples (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they very clearly aren't related to SPAB - nobody thinks that. This is more a "not to be confused with" thing. Perhaps its not necessary to be too precise about they are not to be confused with, beyond the name. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just located a reference that the Society was founded by John Ruskin in 1854 here: [4]. Rupples (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Football in Slovakia. Liz Read! Talk! 20:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak football league system[edit]

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

this article is outdated and it no longer serves any purpose for the reader, if it would be improved it would be okay to keep for sure but not at this stage Michael H (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep after info was restored. It seems that there are pairs of such articles for each European state (though I'm a bit dubious about Gibraltar football league system), so for the sake of consistency, I've changed my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (#1) i, the proposal author would like to withdraw the nomination Michael H (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: Since there's no longer anyone here favoring deletion, would you be all right with a speedy keep, without prejudice against follow-up merge discussion? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Football in Slovakia as above. Happy for AFD to be closed and merger discussion else elsewhere. GiantSnowman 16:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect I also feel that the title here is a plausible search term. Govvy (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided between those wanting to Keep the aritcle and those seeking a Merge. Policy-based arguments would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an unsourced article with a simple template, so theoretically seems easy to delete - however it's also part of a larger set of "X football league system" seen throughout Europe. It's hard to argue for keep without any sources, and I'm not prepared to adopt this, but I think a merge would be fine, as long as re-creation isn't expressly prohibited by this AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merger under stipulation - I'd be okay with a merge as long as the pyramid stays with the new page.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with no prejudice against recreation, I think the arguments for that in this discussion are quite sound. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:39, 20 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rudhraksh J[edit]

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

Rudhraksh J

The actual subject of this article is an actor who has had one major role and so does not satisfy acting notability. There has already been a deletion discussion using his full name; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudhraksh Jaiswal, and Rudhraksh Jaiswal is a redirect. This article has an abbreviated form of his name as a novel method of gaming of article titles. The AFD was tainted by sockpuppetry by both the Keep and the Delete voters, but that does not warrant trying to evade the name. The redirect is not locked, so the originator could have expanded the redirect, or asked for Deletion Review. A review of the article shows that this article also does not establish acting notability or general notability. A review of the references shows that they are not about the actor, but about films about the Mahabharata, an interview with an actress, and an interview with the subject.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 indiatoday.in Not about the actor but about Indian mythological films Yes No Yes No
2 archive.org from Times of India About the Mahabharata Yes No Sometimes No
3 Times of India Another article about the Mahabharata Yes No Sometimes No
4 Times of India Appears to be about someone else and other films Yes No Sometimes No
5 Times of India An interview with the leading lady in a film in which he had a minor role Yes No Sometimes No
6 Indiatoday.in An interview about why he isnt in a film due to covid No Yes Yes No

There is also a draft, Draft:Rudhraksh Jaiswal. It should be left so that it can be expanded if he has another major role. This title should be deleted because it is not a plausible search term and is an article about a non-notable person. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'd typically support a WP:ATD-R alternative, but I agree with the nom that it seems an implausible search term, which would become a WP:R3 redirect to delete. Options to expand the draft or re-edit the redirect at the appropriate time when additional roles/coverage can be added should be utilized, as also stated by nom. -2pou (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I believe Soft Deletion is not possible due to the previous AFD under a different article title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems the best course, sources are a no-go, search term is too broad so that I find anyone with this name. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2023 (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 23:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CCFilms[edit]

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

Don't believe this is notable enough. No sources in article, and can't find any proving notability when searching either. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there’s no sources Elttaruuu (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Tom Scott (YouTuber). Star Mississippi 11:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral with Tom Scott[edit]

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

I can find no coverage of this podcast in any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United Kingdom. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Selective merge to the Tom Scott article, the podcast isn't notable for lack of sourcing, but the individual behind it is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if a redirect may be preferable. There is a stark lack of sourcing for this topic and thus no RS-backed prose in the article, so a redirect may be better in this scenario. Thoughts? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schminnte seems a worthwhile part of Scott's online/career presence to exist as at least a section in his article, so merge seems best rather than remove it entirely Quinby (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we need reliable sources to back up this proposed section. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schminnte true, I did try and add a couple but it seems like the podcast is mostly constricted to podcast-specific websites. Dextero did have an article referencing it. Quinby (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Oaktree b. History6042 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Merge to Tom Scott (YouTuber). I'm not seeing any reliable sources available for this podcast. I also don't see any reason to merge. The article is mostly an episode list. At most there are only three sentences of prose with primary sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tom Scott's page; this is not independently notable on its own. note that the podcast's Twitter/X account is canvassing people to edit the page: https://twitter.com/lateralcast/status/1691191875250618368 wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, I wouldn't say that's explicitly canvassing: they are asking people to improve the article, not comment here. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True. wizzito | say hello! 21:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now - There is a TubeFilter source that taks substantiately about the podcast. I personally believe it to be a reliable source, but that's the only one I could find which contains WP:SIGCOV about it. If no other sources can be found between now and the next few days, this makes a pretty valid Merge. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge Currently there aren't enough sources meeting GNG for an article, but this seems worthwhile to have in Tom Scott's page. However, a split should be on the table in the future if there is more coverage of this. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tom Scott: Non-notable podcast, best to merge the most pertinent info to the article about the notable host User:Let'srun 02:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tom Scott (YouTuber). The TubeFilter article is probably the only good source for it. SWinxy (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No indication of standalone notability under WP:GNG, but there is probably some content here worth salvaging, for example from the lead. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:14, 20 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European National Front[edit]

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

Absolutely no references, inline or otherwise. Preliminary Google search shows that this is unnotable . QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 13:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to William & Mary Tribe. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe Fight Song[edit]

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

Insufficient independent sourcing on the page to show notability. I don't see any references outwith of the College which reference the topic. Possibly should be merged and redirected but I don't know where to JMWt (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider the merge proposal as a deletion alternative.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - per ATD. Redirects are cheap. Even if there was nothing to merge, a redirect is certainly a better option than deletion.
4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mambwe[edit]

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

The subject has made at least one appearance for the Zambia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius XM Weather & Emergency[edit]

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

There is a lack of secondary coverage about this channel which leads to the subject not meeting WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Jumpytoo Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanuza[edit]

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the Angola women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I was able to find was this short piece from 2021 about her recovering from an injury. JTtheOG (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I draftified this article in the first AFD closure so that the article could be improved and submitted to AFD for review but instead it was moved back to main space. This AFD discussion will be closed as Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmal Selab[edit]

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

Article moved from draft with no improvement from prior AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajmal Selab Whpq (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Afghanistan. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without draftification this time. He has not held any role that would constitute an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but has not been shown to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing either. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete He is a significant politician in Afghanistan. and most of Afghan peoples knows him. He held the position of head of Afghan vice president during Karzai administration. also He is a well-known lawyer over the country.

please do not delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parwiz ahmadi (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of X peoples knows him" is not a Wikipedia notability criterion, because anybody could say that about anything if they didn't actually have to prove it. Notability is not a question of the things you say, it's a question of the quality and depth of the sourcing that can or can't be shown to support the things you say, and the sourcing in this article isn't cutting it as it isn't about him at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Notability has been proved in various links. 2407:AA80:314:94CD:247B:8580:C461:D76F (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The only source provided that even comes close to aiding in establishing notability is this one. All the others are brief mentions, or just quoting what he is saying about something else, or doesn't even mention him. -- Whpq (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Whpq not enough notability. Only one source has WP:SIGCOV
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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alianne Matamoro[edit]

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

The subject has made at least five appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I found was this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2023 (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. Ordinarily, I'd redirect this article but the subject is not mentioned in the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Braisy Cabrera[edit]

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

The subject has made at least two appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the women's national football team. GNG not met, per nom. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Artemisa Diario was the best that I could find and it's not enough for GNG. I don't agree with redirecting as she is not mentioned at the suggested target and so the redirect would only confuse the reader. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 16 August 2023 (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. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farzad ghaderi[edit]

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

This page was draftified by Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi with the rationale "Not notable and not edited well". The page Draft:Farzad ghaderi is very similar (see compare 1170203333 to 1170194633). I would contend that the same notability issues exist as pointed out by Syed. He fails WP:NMMA. I think that there is potential for notability for his participation in Wushu, but I cannot verify any of these championships. It is possible there are no english language sources I could find, but in my WP:BEFORE, I could not verify that he won the competitions stated. I have also found some information that contradicts information stated in the article. For example, the article states that at the 2022 Tunisia Kempo World Championships that Farzad Ghaderi won a 75kg competition, but I find that he came in third in three different competitions at that championship. Regardless, I cannot find enough to push him over any WP:SNG I could find or WP:GNG. I think that developing the existing draft with other sources to push over WP:GNG would probably be the best course of action. TartarTorte 19:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Promo/vanity page/COI, doesn't pass notability for MMA or WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is a lack of sourcing for the wushu championships and no indication that they are major events. Database entries do not meet WP:GNG and his highest ever MMA ranking was #531 according to fightmatrix.com . Nothing shows that any WP notability criteria is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analía Céspedes[edit]

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

The subject has made at least one appearance for the Cuba women's national football team according to Soccerway. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention Point Philadelphia[edit]

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

Run of the mill local health non-profit for drug users. Fails WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2023 (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. given the improvement that has occurred since the nomination. More sources would be better but the one that is present should be sufficient for the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Ipsen[edit]

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

The person does not seem significant. No other citations can be found. Google books found some passing mentions matching her name, but they could be for others with the same name. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I found no notable coverage to back up this article. Zero. It sorely fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once sources used, while a RS, is barely a one-liner. Swedish Enclyclopedia? which seems ok, but I can't find anything else about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One hit in Gscholar, appears to be a bio in German, but I'm not sure it's the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason why you can't find sources about this person is because she is Danish. Thus, she may not have many English language references, because the English speaking world has, until the era of the internet, not been very interested to write about the more obscure subjects of Danish history, such as notable women. She is a Dane, and she is included in the danish language encylopedia of notable women of Danish history. If you judge notablity from how many English language references there are about her, then there are many, many notable women of history that you should delete from Wikipedia. Prior to internet, the English speaking world wrote very sparingly about the more obscure history (in this case, women's history) subjects of smaller countries such as Denmark. It is one of the good things about the internet era that these obscure topics can be translated and made availabile to the English speaking world, since foreign language references are accepted in Wikipedia. It would not be a good policy to contradict that development. --Aciram (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gscholar didn't turn up sources in any language, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not uncommon for obscure historical subjects which are less well known. Historical 19th-century women of small countries are not likely to have much information online even when they are notable. For example: there was zero results on Swedish actresses of the pre-1773 period online until they were given their first articles in Swedish language wikipedia. None. That was because Swedish theater history of that period was not even much known among Swedes, only the experts. The internet era is changing all that. Not every notable subject is yet online, particularly not about obscure subjects such as "women's history" which has long been neglected, and not all books are digitalized. They are however to be found in actual material books outside of the internet, in this case not English language books. --Aciram (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aciram and WP:ANYBIO#3. pburka (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of gender, if major business executives of Denmark and other such countries qualify for inclusion on enWP, this should be kept. I am about to edit the article slightly for clarity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a business executive does not qualify anyone for inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, being included in a dictionary of national biography does (per WP:ANYBIO). pburka (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently missed the word "major" in my comment. Had you not missed it, I doubt you'd have thought your objection was warranted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which notability guideline supports the inclusion of major business executives? pburka (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No notability guideline specifies categories of people of major interest. I'm surprised you don't know that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are many versions of her names. So far, I have come across Christine Louise Ipsen, Christine Lovise Ipsen, Louise Ipsen, Lovise Ipsen, Bjerring, Bierring, Biering, Bjering, etc (and I had never heard of her before seeing this AfD a half hour ago). She is listed in the census of 1850 as Lovise Bjerring. -Yupik (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significance is established in the first couple sentences. This is not a living person so we do not need extensive sourcing. It seems that further sourcing is being researched though, and further strong sources if found will further bolster the case for keeping. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aciram Elttaruuu (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford Premier Intermediate Hurling Championship[edit]

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

Can find no significant coverage in any reliable sources. Fails WP:NEVENT. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suriya Filmography Telugu[edit]

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

There is already a page called Suriya filmography. This page is therefore unwanted. Besides, Suriya mainly works in Tamil cinema. The films listed on this page are Telugu dubbed versions of his Tamil films. Trisha'sNemo (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2023 (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. Consensus is clear, and policy-compliant arguments have been made with respect to the sufficiency of sources, even if some of these sources are not in the article. BD2412 T 01:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man: Lotus[edit]

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

Non-notable fan film that immediately fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Two years since the project was announced, it has yet to receive significant coverage from high-quality sources, only low-quality ones such as CBR or MovieWeb. Focusing on the Internet controversy surrounding it is not enough. Additionally, this article was improperly created as a means to bypass the AfC process, after the draft page despite there already being a draft page (created two years ago) that was previously rejected at AfC by Dan arndt on the grounds of NFILM. (Note that Superman: Solar, another fan film closely related to this one, shouldn't have an article either.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely disagree with your statement. First of all, when I created the page, I wasn't aware that there was ever a draft on the same topic and simply wrote it because I felt it was notable enough to have its own page. Do you need to be reminded of WP:AFG?
    This article is one of the most notable fan films of the twenty first century. It is currently sitting at 1,258 for most popular movies on IMDb. Are you advocating for all fan films to be removed from Wikipedia?
    The film has been noticed by numerous news outlets and isn't even comparable to Superman: Solar in media coverage; a quick Google search will show you that.
    I vote Keep. SaltieChips (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    — Note to closing admin: SaltieChips (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have been "noticed" by sources, but those are all unreliable or low-caliber sources that cover every viral phenomenon, every controversy, every meme, every rumor that pops up on the Internet. While such sources may be appropriate to be used as citations, they are typically unacceptable to demonstrate notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per nominator, but I don't necessarily agree with all of the nominator's points. Although comparing articles in this instance is irrelevant, it would be topical to bring up Prelude to Axanar, a Star Trek film that does establish what a fan film article should look like—if only because Paramount sued its filmmaker. I will change my vote if there is stronger coverage beyond perennial hype articles from marginally reliable sources, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a more reliable source to emerge. Spider-Man in film may be a good merge target. The article being a rejected draft is irrelevant; sourcing has increased since then. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per significant news coverage. —theMainLogan (t•c) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC): If the Rachel, Glenn Quagmire, Dream, two spundtracks from Bluey, Listenbourg, PewDiePie, r/wallstreetbets, and Among Us are notable enough to warrant their own articles, so is this film. —theMainLogan (t•c) 00:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that, my friend, is textbook WP:OSE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Textbook what? —theMainLogan (t•c) 10:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you need clarification on what WP:OSE means, or ...? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, it would be nice. —theMainLogan (t•c) 00:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence of WP:OSE: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. In other words, "this other article exists and this is as notable as that" is generally not viewed as a valid argument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already struck it. —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's also worth noting that the page you're referring to is an essay with suggestions, not a page on the rules of this wiki. And I already voted to keep the page—I've already stated my opinion. Isn't that what matters? —theMainLogan (t•c) 12:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Above points explain why to keep it, the film definitely surpasses notability requirements, you'd have to be living under a rock not to know about itwhen the news first dropped that the creators were racist you couldn't escape people talking about the film for a whole week. There have been many news articles about the film. The nominator is acting like fan films have never had wikipedia pages before, even though they most certainly have, and this one has an especially high budget. The draft was denied before the movie came out and was not a complete page, back then it was unclear if the film would even be released due to the controversy, but now we're at a point where the film has been released. Apart from being a film, the discourse around Lotus is an important contemporary example of racism in the film community and how the internet at large addressed it. With even more revelations coming up recently in regards to the film's troublesome development, it'd be the completely wrong move to delete it. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 20:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion on deletion, but it's a bit baffling to say that you'd have to be "living under a rock" to not be familiar with the "Spider-Man: Lotus" fan film. To the contrary, I would imagine only the strongest superhero / internet gossip fans likely have any prior knowledge of this film at all (and even that's a stretch). A MINOTAUR (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I am living under a rock if I hadn't heard of one of the tens of thousands of YouTube videos with a million views; for the record, I found this page through The Verge. Speaking to your arguments themselves: reliable, secondary sources establish notability. This article has neither, regardless of its "high budget". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after reading through the arguments both for and against and re-looking at the sources provided I consider that it fails WP:NFILM, in that it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shuttleworth, Catherine (2023-08-12). "What is Spider-Man: Lotus and why is it so controversial?". Indy100. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Spider-Man: Lotus is a crowdfunded fan film that raised over $100k from backers. The film generated a lot of hype after a trailer for it was released in 2021, gaining 2.7 million views on YouTube. The trailer suggests that the film will centre on Peter Parker struggling with guilt and grief over the death of his girlfriend, Gwen Stacy, a storyline that hasn’t be explored particularly deeply by Sony or Marvel. ... Despite these swathes of controversy, the film premiered on August 10 on YouTube. At the time of writing it has been viewed more than 665,000 times."

    2. Sharma, Jahanvi (2023-08-12). "Film 'Spider-Man: Lotus' battles controversy due to the actor and the director's racist past". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Spider-Man: Lotus, a fan film which was set to be released on 10th August, has sparked quite a loud controversy prior to its release. The film directed by Gavin J. Konop and starring actor Warden Wayne in the lead role, is facing backlash due to their racist past."

    3. Trejo, Yeseline (2023-08-13). "Spider Man Lotus: qué es una fan film y cómo ver en internet desde México" [Spider Man Lotus: what is a fan film and how to watch it on the internet from Mexico]. Diario AS (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Spider Man Lotus protagoniza a uno de los superhéroes más populares y queridos de Marvel Comics; este famoso personaje llamado Peter Parker, ha sido replicado y adaptado en más de una ocasión. Ahora Gaving J Konop, director de cine realizó una nueva entrega seleccionada como Fan Film, es decir, un contenido realizado por los fans. La cinta tardó tres años y no es parte del repertorio de Marvel y Sony."

      From Google Translate: "Spider Man Lotus stars as one of Marvel Comics' most popular and beloved superheroes; this famous character called Peter Parker, has been replicated and adapted on more than one occasion. Now Gaving J Konop, film director made a new installment selected as Fan Film, that is, content made by fans. The tape took three years and is not part of the repertoire of Marvel and Sony."

    4. González, María (2023-08-13). "Spider-Man Lotus: todo sobre la película hecha por fanáticos" [Spider-Man Lotus: All About the Fan-Made Movie]. GQ (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "La historia de este fan-film sucede después de la trágica muerte de la exnovia de Peter Parker, que aparentemente ha sido provocada por su propio intento por salvarla. Esto provoca en él muchas dudas sobre si su alter ego debería desaparecer para siempre, pero en ese momento recibe la noticia sobre un niño con una enfermedad terminal que ha solicitado conocerlo y es así que Peter contempla si consolarlo en sus últimos días."

      From Google Translate: "The story of this fan-film takes place after the tragic death of Peter Parker's ex-girlfriend, which was apparently caused by her own attempt to save her. This causes many doubts in him about whether his alter ego should disappear forever, but at that moment he receives the news about a terminally ill boy who has asked to meet him and so Peter contemplates whether to comfort him in his last days."

    5. Dwinanda, Reiny (2023-08-13). "Spider-Man: Lotus Hadapi Kontroversi Karena Masa Lalu Aktor dan Sutradara yang Rasis" [Spider-Man: Lotus Faces Controversy Over Actor's Racist Past and Director]. Republika (in Indonesian). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Spider-Man: Lotus adalah film penggemar yang diproduksi sebagai proyek gairah nirlaba, tanpa masukan sama sekali dari Marvel Studios atau Sony Pictures. Film ini dibuat tak lama setelah kematian Gwen Stacy. Plot mengikuti Peter Parker yang mempertimbangkan untuk meninggalkan masa pensiunnya sebagai Spider-Man untuk alasan yang baik."

      From Google Translate: "Spider-Man: Lotus is a fan film produced as a non-profit passion project, with no input whatsoever from Marvel Studios or Sony Pictures. This film was made shortly after the death of Gwen Stacy. The plot follows Peter Parker who considers leaving his retirement as Spider-Man for a good reason."

    6. Tamani, Luis (2023-08-06). ""Spider-Man: Lotus": ¿Cuándo y dónde ver ONLINE y GRATIS el controversial filme?" ["Spider-Man: Lotus": When and where to see the controversial film ONLINE and FREE?]. Líbero [es] (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Alejado del caos que se produjo por los comentarios que realizaron, hace algunos días, se confirmó la fecha de estreno de "Spider-Man: lotus", la cual fue financiada por fanáticos del personaje, además de ser producida, en su totalidad, por jóvenes no mayores a los 25 años."

      From Google Translate: "Away from the chaos caused by the comments they made, a few days ago the release date of "Spider-Man: lotus" was confirmed, which was financed by fans of the character, as well as being produced entirely by young people not older than 25 years."

    7. Levandoski, Quinn (2023-08-10). "What Is Spider-Man: Lotus & Why Is It So Controversial?". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Spider-Man: Lotus is a fan film that aims to explore Peter Parker's grief after the death of his girlfriend and his internal struggles about how to be a hero and stand up for others in the face of insurmountable personal loss. The movie first gained attention when an IndieGoGo campaign succeeded in raising $112,079 USD in early 2021. Per the campaign, the project is "not for profit," presumably in an attempt to skirt issues of copyright from Marvel/Disney."

    8. Baker-Whitelaw, Gavia (2023-08-08). "What Is the Fan-Made Film 'Spider-Man Lotus' and Why Do So Many People Hate It?". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Following in a long tradition of fanmade movies, Spider-Man: Lotus was filmed on a low budget, raising $112,000 on Indiegogo. Premiering last week, it’s a non-profit project due to its unlicensed relationship with Marvel. Soon, you’ll be able to watch it on YouTube for free. ... This week Spider-Man: Lotus premiered in LA, with a guest list of excited Spidey fans. However it didn’t earn such a positive response online, mostly due to a racism scandal involving the lead actor and director. So when you look up the premiere, you’ll find a ton of posts joking about it being a Klan meeting and generally mocking the film’s existence:"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spider-Man: Lotus to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sources are low-caliber or potentially unreliable, unsuitable to gauge notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the Independent is low-caliber or unreliable how? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both Indy100 and the Hindustan Times are respected reliable sources.

Indy100 says, "Because indy100 is from The Independent you can still trust us to take our facts very seriously (even the funny ones). Some of the stories will have been inspired by the brilliant work in The Independent. Most will be from the crack team of indy100 journalists."

The scholar Lawrence Saez wrote in The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC): An Emerging Collaboration Architecture, a 2012 book published by Routledge in 2012 said "one of India's most respected newspapers, the Hindustan Times".

The other sources are reliable too (some are generally reliable while others are marginally reliable). But I am not discussing them because these two sources provide significant coverage of the film and are sufficient by themselves to allow the film to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, This article as it currently stands fails NFILM as it does not establish notability from reliable sources, instead relying on low-tier and some unreliable comic-oriented blog news sites. The controversy alone does not hold enough weight to support notability. The contents can be covered at Spider-Man in film#Other films along with other fan films and can be expanded upon in the already existent draftspace article before going through AfC. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I feel the movie is notable enough, since it has been commented on by Jon Watts and trended on Twitter. It is currently a pretty popular part of internet culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilypadgirl (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:TWITTERREF, user-generated content (such as Twitter/X), is unreliable, that includes trends which often are for a period of time and not always defining. Just because a director of some Spider-Man movies acknowledges its existence does not make it pass NFILM or WP:GNG. Just because you "feel" it is notable does not make it true in the case of policy and guidelines. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs), you commented above with the statement about The Independent but would you provide more information in your retention rationale? If you do not provide a more detailed reasoning (such as why you think the sources allow the film to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline), your comment may be given less weight by the closing admin. From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus." Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Huh, not sure why the rest disappeared. I'd blame the computer but really I suspect I did something wrong.
      The Independent and Hindustan Times are both reliable sources, and I'd even argue Screen Rant and The Daily Dot are for the matter of a fan film based on a comic, especially as both sites are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia and have no Sun/Mail/Fox News cloud over their reliability as best as I can see.
      Furthermore the curt, seemingly-inaccurate dismissal of those sources and the research out-of-hand by the nominator is high-handed to say the least.
      This suggests that on this particular topic their mind is made up (if that is not the case I apologise, but based on the information present that is my impression), so it's partly a procedural keep because Wikipedians shouldn't speak to Wikipedians like that, and invoking a bullshit policy like OtherStuffExists is never a good sign either. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the detailed rationale and for clarifying that the rest of your initial comment had disappeared! Cunard (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        "bullshit policy" 😂 —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic, per WP:N. The "world at large" has looked at this topic with sufficiently significant attention. "Significant" is when the coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, and that is happening here. To consider it another way, a topic could be considered significant even if it was not the central focus of a coverage piece -- it just has to be direct and in detail enough. Reliable sources making this film the central focus are highly significant. I am okay with cleaning out sources not considered reliable, but I think that still leaves reliable sources covering the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes GNG with its sources.★Trekker (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To everyone who claims the article meets GNG and NFILM based on its present list of sources, I must say I'm very confused here. Below are the sources that are currently on the article:
In sum, 8 of the sources are primary sources, 4 of them are unreliable, 12 are marginally reliable (there are 5 CBR articles), and none are high-quality sources. How does that satisfy GNG and NFILM? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That ignores the additional sources found by @Cunard including The Independent and Hindustan Times. I don't think anyone's said the article is beyond improvement but there's a clear demonstration sources exist and deletion isn't warranted. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can pick and choose if a reliable source "don't count" because some people deem them "'marginally' reliable".★Trekker (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is draftifying the article not a viable solution to allow editors time to reconstruct the article with adequate sourcing? A draft existed before, and it's not like it would be completely undoing all the contributions put in thus far. A debate can be had on the current article's sourcing and what can be done to expand it to what meets standards, although I think that can be done once the prospect of deletion is out of the way and constructive expansion in draftspace is being worked on. I did realize that there is a bullet list section at Spider-Man in other media#Fan films which is where some information can be covered in the mainspace while the article gets a rework in draftspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In practise draftifying 99% of the time is just delayed deletion, I'm not a fan of it personally.★Trekker (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think virtually everyone agrees that CBR and Screen Rant are much less highly regarded as The Hollywood Reporter and The New York Times. As I wrote above, while it's totally fine to use these sources as citations, they shouldn't be used to demonstrate notability, as they post about everything they deem newsworthy/clickbait-y. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is true they aren't as highly regarded as The Hollywood Reporter I'd also argue that The Hollywood Reporter also isn't anywhere near as highly regarded as The New York Times, that does not make the other sources worthless, and I do think at the very least CBR can be used to establish notability. A wesbite trying to stay alive and putting out a lot of content doesn't mean its content is worthless. "Good enough to use because its reliable, but not good enough to show notability" seems like a terrible road to go down.★Trekker (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. SaltieChips (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard Elttaruuu (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven R. Carter[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG per WP:ACADEMIC. His publications have not held a significant influence over his field, much less in general. Not too different from the regular university professor. GuardianH (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with original opinion. Aside from a singular (rather minor) award, there does not seem to be anything conferring notability to the point of having a biographical page.
A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 11:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha'[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Only formally described species are considered automatically notable, and this fails GNG and SIGCOV besides. SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Baringo'[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per linked AfD - these species are essentially taxonomic phantoms that can never be nailed down now that they are extinct. No basis for an article. (Maybe don't make the nomination that terse though, at first I thought there wasn't a rationale at all) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not formally described? Then definitely not notable. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Kenya. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not officially extinct, and real enough to warrant listing in the Red List. Once it is formally described, the article can be moved to the new name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Only formally described species are considered automatically notable, and this fails GNG and SIGCOV besides. SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jest (framework)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. It's part of series of articles on open-source Facebook software; it's basically stuff that made and backed (both financially and via ads) by corporation which is only well known in limited circles. No need for a separate article. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:51, 13 August 2023 (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 Planetary romance. There was no consensus on what content could be merged to that target, so no merge for now. Objections to merging were based on sourcing issues, not appropriateness of merging in principle; accordingly, if reliable sources are found, merging content from the page history to the target would likely be in accordance with consensus here. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sword and planet[edit]

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

"Sword and planet" is a rarely used term that is more or less synonymous with "planetary romance", which is much more widely used. A conversation on Talk:Sword and planet has led to a consensus that redirecting the page to planetary romance is the right approach, perhaps with a sentence added to the target page mentioning the term, if that can be sourced well enough. Piotrus, one of the participants in that discussion, suggested that since most of sword and planet is unsourced, and what is sourced would not survive as an article if the unsourced material were deleted and would not be merged into the target, it would be effectively equivalent to a deletion and so AfD should be the venue. Siroxo found these uses of the term: [6][7][8][9][10][11] but none are enough to establish that GNG is met for the term. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge lightly to planetary romance. didn’t know this wasn’t supposed to be synonymous. Not an individually notable genre. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For unsourced but unproblematic content (no copyvio, promotion, or attack/defamation) redirection or merging is always preferable to outright deletion, because the history is maintained and it is possible for a non-admin to see the history and retrieve content for improvement from it. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I would propose to simply change the article to a redirect, without deleting history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or weak merge while preserving history, per my talk page comments on the article talk page (I've also done my BEFORE, tried to verify some content in the article, and sadly conclude that it is very ORish). And yes, most sources treat those terms as synonyms, so proposed redirect/merge target is correct. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Planetary romance. As noted here and on the talk page, sources largely treat the terms as synonymous. I don't know that there is any content worth merging as both articles are at the moment rather poor. A "Terminology" section explaining the connection to sword and sorcery/sword and sandal on the one hand and Romance (prose fiction) on the other would be helpful, and such a section could also potentially go into detail about what distinctions sources that do not treat the terms as synonymous make. TompaDompa (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way—and this has no bearing on this discussion as such but might nevertheless be of interest—I found the following quote from Gary Westfahl on the appeal of Edgar Rice Burroughs's approach to portraying Barsoom in this manner (though Westfahl never mentions either "planetary romance" or "sword and planet", so it might not be useable here): Burroughs's depiction of an advanced but decadent civilization further allowed for stimulating inconsistencies, in that one could logically believe a culture at that stage would have retained aspects of its past science and lost others; by picking and choosing what might have been remembered and what might have been forgotten, Burroughs could generate scenarios for thrilling encounters, like the incongruous scene depicted on the Ballantine Books cover of The Gods of Mars—a furious sword-fight waged on top of a futuristic aircraft. (The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters, p. 154). TompaDompa (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Planetary romance. I don't think anything on the page is reliably sourced and worth preserving. There's sources saying the two are synonymous and none differentiating between them. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge per the research I performed in the talk page discussion. I would not be surprised if this splits out again in a few years, but in the current state of access to sources, we can't establish WP:GNG —siroχo 05:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep / merge to section it's ambiguous about whether these are actually the same thing. Sword and planet is based on the fantasy genre known as sword and sorcery, where planetary romance may seen as the science fiction extension of the lost world genre. Sword and sorcery may be a better merge target. And wherever this is merged, sword and planet will need to be distinguished as a distinct subgroup. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to planetary romance. There is little sourced content to merge and I do not see a consistent usage of the terms as distinct genres. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2023 (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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence J. Campbell[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Also fails WP:JUDGE. Redirecting to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies seems like a possibility here. Let'srun (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Goodall Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Some independent sources mention the subject but there is no WP:SIGCOV to speak of and a lot of these sources are either from the subject's website or press releases/churnalism orchestrated by the subject.Icicle City (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siroχo 21:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siroxo, there seems to be enough notability for the subject beyond its founder. Article definitely needs ref improvement though. - Indefensible (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siroxo, significant coverage. And per Indefensible the article needs to be updated with sources like these. -- GreenC 02:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Siroxo and the others. Delete the Jane Goodall Institute? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle, this is one I'll beat my chest and shake my head at, and log off for now. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge I've read through the above and I can conclude that there isn't enough WP:RS to satisfy a separate article about this organisation without applying WP:SYNTH to those primary sources which will innevitably result in a listy, WP:OR heavy article. Jane Goodall can host any content supported by whatever reliable seconday sources there might be, although I haven't seen many of those yet.Icicle City (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find Siroxo's argument the most convincing, with the subject meeting notability policy with coverage independent of Goodall herself. ResonantDistortion 09:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article itself remains poorly sourced, the additional sources produced here are enough to support an independent article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2023 (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) 18:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Khesraw[edit]

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

Despite being capped at international level, I can't find any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I have looked at the other language Wikipedia articles and searched in Farsi (احمد خسرو) but still found nothing of use. Database sources like Soccerway seem to be all we have. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 13 August 2023 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Isfara missile attacks[edit]

2022 Isfara missile attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lists a large number of non-English references, but some people think this is a hoax. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fumikas Sagisavas Feed those sources into a machine translator and you’ll see they say absolutely nothing whatsoever about any missile attacks. Classic WP:SNEAKY trick.
The infobox and body are self-contradictory. Because there was no missile attack (let alone two). Only some shooting and shelling which is already covered by an article.
The use of ballistic missile attacks in a border skirmish would be highly notable and attract coverage outside the region.
Thus I decided to call it “blatant” since thirty seconds of critical reading (even without checking the sources) will indicate the highly sus nature of the page.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2023 (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. Problematic sourcing and a BLP Star Mississippi 11:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rayoe[edit]

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

Article about a musician that does not meet WP:NMUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sources are not WP:RS. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sources have been updated to include more WP:RS sources. This is my second wikipedia article. and I am hopeful to cover more articles on ghanaian musicians. Cobbyannor (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
added more sources. in ghana most news articles are written based on comments or interviews from other musicians. I added so many sources earlier because i was trying to make the article as extensive as possible. i noticed most ghana articles about entertainers are not really extensive. with this rayoe article have added more sources and updated sources to ensure they are WPRS and also i used the Find sources: Google (books · news · to find news on Rayoe which i added as a source. for instance, this article https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Ghanaian-musicians-don-t-support-their-own-CHASE-334058 was found when i clicked on the news and i have added it as a source. i think the deletion tag can be removed . this discussion can be closed. thank you all for helping me to be a better wikipedia contributor. i am hopeful to cover extensively more ghana entertainers musicians. thank you. quick one example of the extensive research done.. i search for Rayoe's real name and through that i found this article https://theboombox.com/drug-trafficker-avoids-prison-despite-incriminating-rap-lyrics/ and i added it to the sources far earlier.. that helped make the article more extensive. Thank you Cobbyannor (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more WP:RS sources have been added.. And there were already WP:RS sources in the article. Cobbyannor (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the article has been updated since the last relist. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 10:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deletion tag can be removed now Cobbyannor (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cobbyannor, the AFD tag must remain until this discussion is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Source 1 from the article appears to be an unattributed copy of Source 5. I have removed it from the article in accordance with WP:CV/WP:ELNEVER. I think the fact that GhanaWeb published an unambiguous copyright violation speaks to the lack of reliability of that source (as a publisher), so we can disregard all sources published there for the purposes of notability. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed two additional citations for the same reason. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    that means all citations of wikipedia where ghanaweb was used in all wikipedia articles concerning ghanaians should be disregareded.. ghana web is a big reliable source for all Ghana information Cobbyannor (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Rayoe-Kwesi-Arthur-and-8-other-rappers-projecting-hip-hop-culture-in-Ghana-1820717 Yes No Publishes copyvio, see above ~ ✘ No
https://www.pulse.com.gh/entertainment/music/stonebwoy-endorses-rayoe-the-dagomba-boy-as-the-us-based-rapper-begins-world-takeover/fc22hwz Yes ? Yes ? Unknown
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/Hip-Hop-artiste-Rayoe-eyes-international-market-1502528 Yes No Publishes copyvio, see above Yes ✘ No
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Ghanaian-musicians-don-t-support-their-own-CHASE-334058 Yes No Publishes copyvio, see above No ✘ No
https://www.pulse.com.gh/entertainment/music/rayoe-kwesi-arthur-and-8-other-rappers-embracing-the-future-of-hip-hop-in-ghana/9sepjzc Yes ~ No Unattributed copy of source 1 ✘ No
https://dailyguidenetwork.com/rayoe-ready-to-take-over-the-world/ Yes ? I could not find any editorial practices or indication of oversight. Likely insufficiently reliable for notability Yes ? Unknown
https://theboombox.com/drug-trafficker-avoids-prison-despite-incriminating-rap-lyrics/ Yes ? No This is about a different person. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment by Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lack of coverage in reliable sources means that WP:BASIC is not met, and there is no reliably verifiable indication that WP:NMUSICIAN is met either. Note that the article contained extensive WP:BLP violations, as well as some links to copyright-infringing content. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    can you give examples of the copyright-infringing content you are talkking about?? Cobbyannor (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire articles were copied from here. To be clear, this is not a copyright violation on part of anyone on Wikipedia. The people who published those sources are the ones who are violating copyright. It's just that the copyright policy prohibits linking to copyright violations in articles. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    give exact examples of the WP:BLP violations you're talking about because this seems like an attack? Cobbyannor (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This paragraph likely violated WP:BLP; the source article is about Mohammed Amadu, which appears to be a different person with the same last name. I don't mean to attack anyone; mistakes happen to the best of us. But we need to be extra careful about policies with legal relevance, like BLP and copyright considerations. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jela Cello[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I made a light BLP edit before nominating. Perhaps someone who reads Serbian can provide a claim and several independent, reliable cites to notability. But from my reading, there isn't any. JFHJr (㊟) 04:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jela Mihailovic) so Soft Deletion is not suitable so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 10:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5, AvinashCabral. A10 may well have also applied but I didn't look into it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goa Island (India)[edit]

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

The article seems misleading and lacks verifiable sources. The author claims there is an Island within the state of Goa known as Goa Island or Island of Goa. I couldn't find any sources mentioned in the article thats states the same. An exact copy of the article tone was previously created on Goa Island article by a blocked user. But I reworked the article from zero as it was actually an Island of Mozambique. This seems like a case of WP:OR. Rejoy2003(talk) 07:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Talk:Goa Island (India) page of the article for the justification of the page's existence as well as the reply to User:C.Fred for the sources.
You may not find the exact name (ie. Goa Island) in sources for two main reasons:
1. Historical references to this island (Ilha de Goa) is in the Portuguese language, not English; since Goa was under Portuguese rule, not British.
2. Due to the construction of several bridges in recent history, connecting the island to other parts of Goa, it gives an impression that it is not an island. Zocdoclesson (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources, in the form of historical maps:
Notice the piece of land called Ilha de Goa is surrounded on all sides be water - which makes it an island. (Ilha is the Portuguese word for Island)
This same body of water can be seen today. A quick on any navigation app (eg. Google Maps) will show you the island surrounded by water.
Geo Coordinates for reference: 15.4725025, 73.9491687 Zocdoclesson (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under criterion A10, recently created article that duplicates an existing article: Divar. No evidence that the name is in common usage in English. —C.Fred (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This island is completely different from Divar. Did you bot see the images in the previous comment? Zocdoclesson (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not* Zocdoclesson (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2023 (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 04:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylverina Damilola Olaghere[edit]

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

BLP of a successful career woman who does not seem to meet any of our criteria for notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Education, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've removed a rather large copyright violation from the page. The rest of the article doesn't pass any notability standards, a quick search for her name on Google doesn't show any WP:SIGCOV. Deauthorized. (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thank you for your contribution. I have noticed your take. However, I can guarantee a google search of her name brings up some results. Sylverina Damilola Olaghere here are the results. Abba Attah (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Per nom and Deauthorized. Clearly non-notable per Wikipedia standards with copyrighted material in page history. —Sirdog (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deauthorized and nom, only passing mentions found from a Google search along with some social media links. Ain't gonna cut it for notability. Tails Wx (they/them) 07:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination. She doesn't meet our notability criteria's. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2023 (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 04:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Chakram[edit]

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

Almost completely unsourced/original research/promotional tone. Entire articles relies on one production source quoted from the lead actress. One unreliable review (broken link). No reliable reviews/other sources. DareshMohan (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. This was a complicated discussion in which it seemed like half of the accounts participating were IP editors so duplicate votes can not be completely ignored as a possibility. But through it all, I see only agreement on one reliable source with the other references' independence and SIGCOV being questioned. I was also influenced by the fact that this individual's primary notability comes from his polling organization whose article was deleted due to a perceived lack of notability.

I do want to mention that the nominator, User:Vergilreader did his case no favors by bludgeoning this entire, long AFD discussion. You could have easily been blocked from participating in this discussion, please do not respond to every comment in any future AFDs you start.

I do understand that this closure decision might go to Deletion review for evaluation and I can only wish the editors participating there good luck in sorting this out. I also have no objection to this article being restored to Draft space for further improvement but if it is just moved back to main space, you can expect a speedy CSD G4 deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shieh[edit]

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

Article is poorly sourced and may be created by Alex Shieh, or someone who knows him. For example, the middle name listed (Kim-Hyunchul) can't be found anywhere else on the internet. This is either entirely made-up or created by someone who knows Shieh personally. Same can be said about his exact birthday. Overall, this article is entirely favorable of Shieh and fails to include any dissent of his opinions, which there have been plenty of. Additionally, creator of the page User:Stopasianhate has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and the user who removed the redirect User:Keepabortionlegal35 hasn't created any other articles, let alone without an AfC. Vergilreader (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The unsourced information has been removed. SoniaSotomayorFan (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Massachusetts. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This fellow did something interesting in high school - one thing. It got attention and he appeared on TV, and there was a short bit about him in the New Yorker in the more chatty section of the contents. He is quoted in some articles, like in Wired, but is not the focus of those articles. He also has been writing articles for reasonably impressive journals. Yet I do perceive him as a one-trick pony until proven otherwise. (I also did some editing, moving his writings outside of the references, and removed an unnecessary ref. The article is fairly ref-bombed.) Lamona (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, likely a case of WP:TOOEARLY. Also worth noting that the consensus on the "something interesting" he did in high school was deemed not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Vergilreader (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, part of my point is the article is not at all neutral. Before being removed, lots of unsourced information seemed like it could only have come from Shieh or someone who knows him personally. The alternative is it was completely made up. Either way, none are fit for a Wikipedia article. Vergilreader (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*I was going to stay neutral on this but now I'm leaning towards keep. Nom's concern with sourcing/unsourced info seems to have been addressed. As for the 'one thing' critique, a quick scan of the sources shows at least two 'things' have gotten WP:SIGCOV in big national outlets like the New Yorker, ABC, or Fox: the political polls and the affirmative action controversy. However, I'd be willing to change my !vote if nom can give us a WP:DEL-REASON, because the current objections (neutrality, sourcing) can be/have been fixed though editing per WP:ATD. Right now, I'd say that this guy technically meets WP:BASIC, albeit not by much. SoniaSotomayorFan (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things. First, I'd argue that the coverage doesn't meet the general notability requirement because it is not "independent of the source." Aside from Rolling Stone and CBS Austin, which make passing mentions of Shieh's opinions, all the other sources include Shieh either on screen as a speaker or are his actual columns/op-eds. Note the WP:GNG says specifically, "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it."
    And, taking a closer look at WP:JOURNALIST, Shieh meets none of the following criteria:
    1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
    2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
    3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
    4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Vergilreader (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Known for one thing that is, itself, not worth an article. "National attention for a column" is... not saying much in 2023, particularly when the sources are two video blurbs, one of them from an unreliable source. That adds effectively zero to the scale, leaving us with not enough. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only two keep votes are accounts created within the past couple of weeks (after a separate page was created), while delete votes all are experienced editors. Vergilreader (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now one of those has been discovered to be a sock. So, now one new account and an IP. Vergilreader (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep because the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability. Regarding WP:JOURNALIST (taken from my comment here), Per WP:NBIO, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below [such as WP:JOURNALIST in our case]."
In reference to various additional occupation-specific criteria, such as WP:JOURNALIST, the policy also states, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."
Thus, even if the subject does not the meet WP:JOURNALIST standards, this alone is not valid reason for deletion, if WP:NBASIC is still met. I believe it is, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. Here is a source assessment table:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New Yorker Yes Story is written by a journalist at the New Yorker based on several interviews and original reporting. The journalist draws his own conclusions, makes independent observations, and editorializes levying judgements and criticism. Yes The New Yorker follows established journalistic standards and is a reliable source. Yes The entire magazine article is focused on Alex Shieh and his classmate and their doing polls. ✔ Yes
Fox News No The subject is talking about himself. No Consensus says Fox is not reliable. Yes The entire article is dedicated to Alex Shieh. ✘ No
ABC News Yes Yes. Statements of fact are fact-checked by the anchor/author of the article and said in ABC's authoritative voice, such as where the subject is going to college and the specific details of the court ruling. The subject's opinions face scrutiny from the other guest and the host. Yes Consensus says ABC is reliable. Yes Alex Shieh, and another student, are the focus of the coverage. ✔ Yes
Rolling Stone Yes Yes. Written by an independent journalist who compiles information from interviews and court rulings. Yes Rolling Stone is not reliable for politics, but the article is used to verify biographical details, not political facts, which falls under culture and is considered credible. Yes Alex Shieh, his biographical details, and his views, are analyzed and rebutted for over WP:100WORDS. ✔ Yes
WHDH Yes Yes. This segment features clips of the subject speaking but is narrated by an independent reporter who makes independent judgements and conclusions based on interviews and original reporting. Yes This news station is credible. Yes The subject is the main focus of this coverage. ✔ Yes
Time Yes Yes. Time is an independent news organization. Yes Time is credible. No The article is about Nikki Haley, not the subject. ✘ No
Columns No These are written by the subject. Yes The Boston Globe is a reliable source. No The subject is not the mian focus of his own writing. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your analysis here. To start, this doesn't even address the point User:Lamona brought up about WP:1E. Even if the source analysis is completely accurate, this would warrant a delete by summary judgment. The source analysis seems to suggest there may be two events (Phillips Academy Poll coverage and affirmative action coverage). However, the consensus I pointed to previously is that his polling was not notable, and he therefore cannot be known for that event. Wikipedia's policy is "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." If the editors of a page such as Affirmative Action believe his role is large enough to be in that article, perhaps he can be added there. But, Shieh's role in the Affirmative Action movement simply is not large enough to warrant a separate article. He is known only for his opinions leading up to and immediately following the SFFA v. Harvard case.
But, for the sake of argument, I'll also discuss the source analysis. The analysis seems to confuse significant coverage from count of quotations or speaking time. Wikipedia policy is defines significant policy as something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail." The topic of this article is Alex Shieh. Someone discussing an affirmative action argument Shieh made does not address Shieh, it addresses an affirmative action argument. Most of the sources included only address Shieh as an affirmative action critic and Brown University student, before allowing him to speak to the screen about his opinions (not himself). A true source with Shieh as a subject may describe something like his college application journey or story of getting involved in Affirmative Action, for instance. My main objections are below:
  • ABC News: Lindsey Davis introduces Shieh for less than five seconds at the start of the video, before he debates affirmative action with another student. Shieh is not a subject of this source here, affirmative action is.
  • Rolling Stone: Firstly, this is definitely a political piece, as it fundamentally addresses affirmative action, a political issue. The article is filed under the "Politics" section on the header, so any assertion to the contrary is misleading. So, the reliability of this source is questionable. And, WP:100WORDS is just an essay, not consensus wikipedia policy. But regardless, little information about Shieh's background aside from his ethnicity and education is given, with a little more attention to opinions he has.
  • WHDH: Again, Shieh is simply a messenger in this clip, not a subject. He is described briefly (less than 15 seconds total) with his title, age, school, and organization, before Shieh and the anchor discuss polling results. Subjects here are Phillips Academy and the Phillips Academy Poll, not Shieh.
To summarize, below is my source analysis table (excluding the ones you already labeled as not counting toward GNG, leaving blank the ones I agree with your reasoning and judgment):
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Vergilreader
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New Yorker Yes Yes Yes Significant parts of article the article are focused on Alex Shieh and his classmate and why they started doing polling, as well as future plans. ✔ Yes
ABC News Yes Yes No Shieh is not a subject of this source and only receives a brief introduction. ✘ No
Rolling Stone Yes No Rolling Stone politics is not considered a reliable source, and this article is in the politics section. No Shieh's opinions are briefly featured, but he and his actions are not the subject, even though the article may discuss opinions that he has. ✘ No
WHDH Yes Yes No Shieh is shown here because he is discussing a non-notable organization's polling results. He only receives a brief introduction and is not a subject. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Vergilreader (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the user who originally created a separate article on this topic, I think I have a unique perspective on this matter. I'd originally interpreted Wikipedia guidelines like User:IAmHuitzilopochtli, but after reading User:Vergilreader's analysis, am inclined to agree a separate article is not needed. If an article creator has any special permissions in an Afd, please expedite the delete process. Jfkadmirer (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just some context about Jfkadmirer's claims above looking through their edit history. Jfkadmirer previously engaged in an edit war to instate a bizarre one-sentencer (see here) about how Shieh competed in varsity pole vault in high school, which is not at all what he is known for and read like vandalism/prank. Then Jfkadmirer improperly attempted to draftify a redirect (see here). That "separate article" version edits is not at all what this current version here is. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the full picture. The first time I removed the redirect, I'd intended to use that text as a placeholder for a draft. It was then (rightfully) redirected back since I'd accidentally done the whole article. Of course, when I moved it to draftspace again I did it wrong, but at the time I believed a separate article was needed (though I no longer believe this). Jfkadmirer (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I mostly agree with the first source assessment table, with a minor disagreement where I see the merits of the nominator's point (see my table below). However, I also find the nominator's reading of Wikipedia policy a bit selective and misleading at times.
  • About the one event policy, WP:BLP1E says We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
All three conditions must be met for exclusion under WP:BLP1E. I think 1 and 2 are not:
Condition 1: Sources we both deem reliable have covered the subject in two contexts, affirmative action and polls. His specific poll group being found non-notable over a year ago is of no relevance here.
Condition 2: WP:LPI defines a low profile individual as not seeking out media attention, and a high-profile person as someone who might have many scheduled media appearances with notable media. Shieh is not low-profile because he voluntarily engages in media appearances on television and through his columns on topics besides polls and affirmative action.
  • Regarding source analysis, it seems like there is mostly consensus, but I believe the nominator's understanding of WP:SIGCOV is not correct. The policy says 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. So, whether or not Alex Shieh, or polling results, or affirmative action is the main topic is a pedantic and meaningless distinction. So is a distinction regarding whether coverage is about Sheih or Sheih's opinions--aren't his opinions an aspect of the subject as a journalist that should be included in the wiki article? What makes the coverage significant is the fact that aspects of Alex Shieh are addressed directly and in detail which provides sourcing for all sorts of claims in the wiki article such as his approximate age, education, and career details without the need for original research on our part. Given the emphasis placed on Shieh, it seems a stretch to call such coverage a trivial mention, rather than sigcov. Here is a modified version of the nominator's source assessment table that outlines areas of consensus, as well as my objections.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:172.59.190.251
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New Yorker Yes consensus view Yes consensus view Yes consensus view ✔ Yes
ABC News Yes consensus view Yes consensus view Yes Shieh and his work are addressed directly and in detail, so that we can source claims made in the wiki article without doing original research ourselves. And, there is more than just the Lindsay Davis clip. There is also a clip with David Muir, and an online news article

(concurring with IAmHuizilopochtli, disagreeing with Vergilreader)

✔ Yes
Rolling Stone Yes consensus view ? Is Rolling Stone reliable for sourcing biographical facts that happen to be included in the politics section of the magazine?

(Unsure on stance)

Yes Shieh and his work (and his opinions which are relevant to this page) are addressed directly and in detail, so that we can source claims made in the wiki article without doing original research ourselves

(concurring with IAmHuizilopochtli, disagreeing with Vergilreader)

? Unknown
WHDH Yes consensus view Yes consensus view Yes Shieh and his work are addressed directly and in detail, so that we can source claims made in the wiki article without doing original research ourselves. The clip addresses actions Shieh has undertaken (getting grant funding and building an automatic dialing system for instance)

(concurring with IAmHuizilopochtli, disagreeing with Vergilreader)

✔ Yes
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}}.
In summary, I think this should be kept as the subject does not meet the WP:BLP1E criteria for exclusion, and multiple sources determined to be reliable and independent per consensus from the nominator themself do indeed include WP:SIGCOV (not to mention the New Yorker, which the nominator agrees meets the GNG requirements in all three categories). 172.59.190.251 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brazen misinterpretation of WP:1E, but I won’t blame you since you’re an IP (and presumably inexperienced at Wikipedia). This is certainly in the context of a certain event. A court ruling and its media coverage is considered an event. How can an organization (The Phillips Academy Poll) be an event? And, how can someone be known for an “event” that isn’t notable? Additionally, to the low-profile individual part, the page you describe says a high-profile individual “ Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator.” Shieh is not any of these and therefore isn’t high-profile. So, WP:1E certainly applies.
Again, I find issue with your interpretation of significance, which is understandable since you’re an inexperienced IP. You highlight “ directly and in detail” yet none of your alterations to my assessment actually show Shieh’s coverage being direct and in detail.
  • ABC: Shieh’s opinions are certainly explained in detail by himself, but again, that is by himself, not someone independent. The actual independent coverage from the anchor simply makes a passing mention to a few of his credentials like his college. Also, per WP:SIGCOV, multiple publications from the same org don’t count extra.
  • Rolling Stone: Your independence and sigcov columns contradict. Sure, perhaps biographical details are accurate, but then you’re claiming the description of the author’s work is also even though it’s in the politics section? And, again, Shieh is barely mentioned as I’ve discussed in my previous comment on this issue.
  • WHDH: The “work” you mentioned is only discussed for fifteen seconds at most. Definitely just a trivial mention, the majority of the clip is about the org itself, not Shieh. And, notice what you listed is stuff that the org did.
Overall, I completely stand by my previous comment supporting WP:1E and the source assessment. Vergilreader (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the source assessment table header originally say User:IAmHuitzilopochtli? And why did User:IAmHuitzilopochtli hide it so quickly? Vergilreader (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crossed out confirmed sock/duplicate comments. Might be a good idea to relist with cleaner debate.66.171.166.43 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting all socks and duplicate comments were in favor of keep. 66.171.166.43 (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Perhaps this is COI like my original nomination reason? Almost as if the first edit made by User:SoniaSotomayorFan was to cover up a mistake by User:Keepabortionlegal35. Just speculation to be taken with a grain of salt. Vergilreader (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is passingly notable for running an unusual polling service and for inserting himself into the debate on the SCOTUS' decision on affirmative action. Individually they might not be enough but having both for the same subject must admittedly be considered in combination. Additionally, the subject has chosen a field (journalism) which is likely to increase their publicity and exposure in the future but also has already done so to some degree (e.g. the interviews and published articles which are with a generally reliable source). So while parts of the material might be promotional, they should not be discounted either. However, a COI warning should be applied if the article is kept to prevent future abuse. - Indefensible (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With the socking and the competing source analysis tables, I'm going for a Final relist and hope some uninvolved editors can take a second look at this article and we can reach a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Brifly talks about him here [17], but I don't think he's more notable than the other student interviewed in the story. Sourcing appears primary in the article, not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Kid gets interviewed about a policy change and writes articles on same subject" isn't notable, yet. Too early, but if he keeps writing as he has, might very well be notable in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That neglects the polling group he started in high school, which is the subject considered more notable by some above. He got coverage for 2 items primarily, not just the affirmative action case. - Indefensible (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he certainly got coverage, but the problem is more so the following:
    1. The polling group is not notable.
    2. Aside from New Yorker, all other coverage involving the poll of Shieh only has passing mentions of Shieh—he is never the subject of articles himself. And of course, one cannot inherit notability from org.
    These points suggest Shieh can’t be known for the org. Simple coverage itself isn’t enough. And, he still fails WP:JOURNALIST. Vergilreader (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The New Yorker ref can be used to argue that what he did regarding the polling service was notable in my opinion, even if the group itself was not deemed to be notable enough to have an article. - Indefensible (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not too sure what I think about a single article being sufficient to avoid WP:1E, let’s see what others think. Thanks for the perspective! By the way, what do you think about the source assessments for GNG? Vergilreader (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both you and IAmHuitzilopochtli (and I see now there is an IP editor as well) agree the New Yorker ref supports GNG, so ignoring it as Oaktree b did is a mistake in my opinion and there should be no question on at least partial notability for the subject. The question becomes more of the other references as you asked, mainly concerning the SCOTUS' affirmative action case. I am leaning towards keep but have not fully decided yet. - Indefensible (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it depends on how much “partial notability” is enough to override WP:1E. You seem to think this is enough, while I, Lamona, and XOR'easter think otherwise, but let’s wait for a few more opinions. We can agree to disagree here.
    What other references are you looking at? The only other SCOTUS related source in contention is ABC News if you look at the IP’s table. I personally don’t think ABC meets sigcov, but even if it did, would two sources (New Yorker and ABC) even be enough for an article per GNG and WP:JOURNALIST? Vergilreader (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you where you asked "How can an organization (The Phillips Academy Poll) be an event?" The subject does not seem like a good fit under WP:1E because their notability is not based on such an event. It seems like a borderline case overall, honestly the best outcome in my opinion would be close as no consensus. - Indefensible (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main claim of notoriety seems to be regarding the High School "polling firm" created - but this is shaky to define (what exactly constitutes a "polling firm"? I have to imagine that a poll conducted by students has been featured on at least local news before, so the question then centers around some abstract margin for what makes a "polling firm" notable). Regardless, while impressive, this does not seem significantly more notable than many other long-term projects done by Ivy League prospect type students around the world. His work as a journalist also does not seem to have yet conferred enough notability to justify an biographical page.
A MINOTAUR (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCompletely agree. This is too soon, a page can always be created later if he becomes more notable. 2607:FB91:D74:12E4:5046:DA26:BD6E:C1BE (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upon further reconsideration, I now understand the poll is more impressive than the typical high-school project.A MlNOTAUR (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case it is not clear, I (actually @A MlNOTAUR) did not change my opinion "upon further reconsideration", and it's a bit strange and worrying to have someone impersonate me just to try to cancel out my rather banal opinion to delete. I maintain that this page warrants deletion and that the project, while nice, is indeed not anything significantly notable to the point of having a biographical page. I'd recommend that the person impersonating me, who I strongly suspect has some degree of conflict of interest, understand that this type of behavior often only ends up being detrimental to their goals. A MINOTAUR (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly an account impersonating User:A MINOTAUR. Crossing out edit. Vergilreader (talk)
  • Keep after further consideration per above, but needs COI warning. Phillips Academy Poll was deleted in July 2022, but if you look at Phillips Academy#The Phillips Academy Poll there were new reliable sources added with the election later that year, so its notability has increased since the deletion. Therefore arguments should no longer be based on its previous lack of notability in my opinion. The New Yorker, WHDH, and NHPR refs in particular suggest notability. This case seems borderline overall but other refs such as from ABC should push towards inclusion; note the subject of the ABC ref is not the SCOTUS decision but rather how the outcome will affect students--including the subject of this article. We should expand coverage of the encyclopedia given the opportunity in such cases. - Indefensible (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally thought this too, which is why I created a separate page for the subject originally. I agree that the polling org perhaps has increased notability now, but remember that per WP:INHERITORG, this doesn't make Shieh notable. I don't see enough refs right now to make the individual notable. Jfkadmirer (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the sources which support the polling group also support him though. Like a Venn diagram they would be 2 circles with significant overlap. There is some more recent coverage on the polling group now that he is not longer there, but also there are some more refs for him from the affirmative action issue. - Indefensible (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources exactly? NHPR for example doesn't even mention Shieh's name. Most refs I find of the org actually only mention it in the context of the polling data. Jfkadmirer (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    New Yorker is the main ref, there seems to be no controversy over counting that. WHDH is good in my opinion. NHPR is good for the polling group, and the subject indirectly. Also counting at least partially some of the more controversial refs like ABC, Rolling Stone, Fox, and the Boston Globe articles even if primary; they are secondary but enough in addition. - Indefensible (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A collection of weak sources that don't each meet GNG is generally not a good argument for the subject being notable, and primary sources especially should not be considered towards notability. Like User:Jfkadmirer notes, I don't think NHPR counts at all since Shieh's name isn't in the article. New Yorker being the "main ref" isn't enough alone, Wikipedia is not a place to recite a single source with a bunch of minor facts from other sources added on. None of these articles suggests anything toward meeting WP:JOURNALIST either. Vergilreader (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never felt that WP:JOURNALIST was particularly applicable in this case. As I mentioned earlier, I do not think WP:1E particularly applies either. Mainly looking at the New Yorker which seems uncontroversial and counts as you and others reviewed, in addition to WHDH and the collection of additional sources. In any case, may reply to directed questions but not looking to argue further and will move on to other subjects. - Indefensible (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the editor that created this version of the article, I disagree with the deletion reasons above. There is clearly more than 1E, polling (1) and AA (2), (a previously deleted article on his polling does not negate it from being an event which received sigcov). The New Yorker in particular, but also WHDH, cover him in-depth with regard to that. And I agree with the 3rd table, as I have reviewed the sources in question and do find the coverage significant.
Keepabortionlegal35 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely an "uninvolved editor" like User:Liz was hoping for since this is an account that made one of the (three) attempts to remove the redirect from this page. This vote is just the assumed position of someone who created a separate article (User:Jfkadmirer's delete vote is noteworthy for this reason) and provides no new arguments. Vergilreader (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rolling Stone probably fails independence. Indefensible is wrong to hint that "partially counting" is acceptable for sources like NHPR. But, WHDH (along with the New Yorker) is enough to push this into keep, since the source does have a significant portion describing what the subject does and a bit of biographical information as well. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree on Rolling Stone. But no, WHDH describes what the polling organization does, not directly what the subject does (other than his title and age). It is a passing mention of Alex Shieh, who himself is also talking about the poll, not himself. The coverage in WHDH is not even close to the in-depth description of Shieh as an individual and his role within the org that the New Yorker provides, which we both believe meets the point of SIGCOV. Vergilreader (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will not vote due to COI. I attended Phillips Academy with Alex, the subject of this article. After his first op-ed in Newsweek, he immediately made clear to his classmates that he was going to create himself a Wikipedia page. He confirmed that he had an account and had also been blocked previously, cussing at the platform when this happened. Part of his motivation was to boost his college application, as Harvard was well-known to be his top choice at the time. Beyond that, he believed it was a resume builder. I cannot confirm for certain what accounts he held, but I’d imagine it is no coincidence there are so many sock puppet allegations on this page.

On the contrary, Alex is an extremely controversial (infamous may be a better word) figure at school, so I would not be surprised if the delete votes on this page are his classmates either.

Overall, beware of your votes and who is voting. There is likely lots of sock or meat puppetry here. Regardless, if the page is kept, I support the COI notice on the article others have asked for. 2607:FB91:D74:12E4:8D59:81BF:6D2B:4D0 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youthful mistakes potentially, if true. Very possible though in my opinion. Alex, if you read this, you should improve your standards. It does not reflect well. - Indefensible (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well over 40 yrs old at this point and not in high school. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I mostly agree with vergilreader's source assessment and interpretation of sigcov. If users agree that the subject's articles in the Boston Globe aren't independent, I see no difference if the subject happens to be talking to a TV audience on ABC News or WHDH. The introductions the anchor gives is analogous to the short bios given at the top and bottom of the column. I'm also bringing up exclusion. The first point of advertising applies here, although the subject is a person and not an organization. There's already been allegations of the subject potentially causing a COI here, and nom's points about the article having personal details (middle name and exact birthday) not found elsewhere are particularly concerning. The criteria of barely notable individuals is also important, as the comment above this states as well. Lots of potential for defamation, as the subject is barely notable aside from a "single event in their life that thrust them into the newspapers." Touchstone applies too. Looking at Google Trends, the site returns "your search doesn't have enough data to show here" for interest by subregion, related topics, and related queries. An article is likely not warranted based on this data. 2607:FB91:D92:4947:642F:7668:E701:E43C (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I think it can definitely be improved I think it is just WP:TOOEARLY. Shadow345110 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Star Lake (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This page began as a WP:TWODABS situation, was WP:PRODed, then de-PRODed and expanded, and was recently trimmed to two items again following a RfD. It's currently a WP:ONEOTHER page, so disambiguation can be better handled with a hatnote. - Eureka Lott 15:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a good point. The Wisconsin list doesn't have any meaningful information about that Lone Star Lake. It might be better to eliminate the hatnote entirely. - Eureka Lott 17:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added three more to the list and sourced them, as well as sourced the original two. I know you want article links, but this at least illustrates that perhaps a dab is worth looking into. Texas being the "Lone Star State" with 254 counties, the possibilities on multiple lakes of that name are pretty good. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are clearly multiple places named Lone Star Lake—it's just that we only have information about one of them. Entries on a disambiguation page without links to further information aren't helpful to readers. We do have some set index articles about lakes, but this is (obviously) a disambiguation page, not a set index. - Eureka Lott 21:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) And I've removed them per WP:DABREF and WP:DABMENTION. If you can incorporate information on these lakes into an existing article, or create a new article, then an entry can be added. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Clarityfiend. Convert to SIA and add references. What would be the new title? Jay 💬 07:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of lakes named Lone Star Lake: There are several entries in the category similarly named, e.g. List of lakes named Fish Lake. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I don't want to relist this discussion a third time, except for the nominator, it's not clear to me what participants want from this closure among the limited options that are available. If you want to "reclassify" or rewrite this article, you are going to have to voice support for Keeping it first. After it is Kept, then changes can be made through editing but first we have to see support for a Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I would see Keep as an implicit vote for Reclassify and Rename. Jay 💬 05:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jay. That's pretty damn clear. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a start to a set index article as suggested above with good examples of standard practice for identically named lakes. I think there are other geographic features for which SIAs exist as well. —siroχo 05:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to make it easier to notice for others, @Maile66 has a revision here [18] that is a start of a set index article. —siroχo 05:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and transform into a set index article per above discussion. The revision mentioned by @Siroxo seems like a good start. Above comments demonstrate precedence for this solution. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:55, 13 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PharmaCann[edit]

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

Non-notable business, simple confirmation of existence, per sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 00:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources offered. It helps to link directly to sources that might be SIGCOV rather than to search results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I agree with voters above that the company has a lot of news in Google. These are pretty good 1, 2, 3, and 4.Royal88888 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find ample newspaper coverage. ≈ MS Sakib  «TalK» 01:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - here's a source assessment table, evaluating sources we have so far with respect to WP:SIRS. A lot of non-independent coverage, a lot of routine coverage including a lot of "will they won't they" with "MedMen". —siroχo 05:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Business Insider piece ("BI, Berke[7]") should be viewed without reference or use of the quoted material, in which case I'd class it as independent and reliable; the perennial sources reference notes to use caution in using it as a reliable source, not to dimiss it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Southern Maryland Chronicle[20] No (See comment below for deeper ORGIND analysis) Uses quotes representing subject, not completely independent as required by SIRS ? ? ✘ No
CNBC [21] No (See comment below for deeper ORGIND analysis) Uses quotes representing subject, not completely independent as required by SIRS Yes ? ✘ No
Inquirer[22] No Uses quotes representing subject, not completely independent as required by SIRS Yes ? ✘ No
Reuters[23] Yes no comment from subject Yes No only concrete coverage is run-of-the-mill (paperwork for IPO, takeover offers). There is also speculative coverage. Does not meet CORPDEPTH ✘ No
Bloomberg[24] No "The Los Angeles-based cannabis company said Tuesday..." also quote from another non-independent party Yes ? ✘ No
BI, Berke[25] No Quote from non-independent source ~ WP:BI No run of the mill, does not meet CORPDEPTH ✘ No
Addiction Center[26] Yes seems to be secondary independent coverage ? No run of the mill, no CORPDEPTH ✘ No
Denver Post[27] No Quote from rep Yes ? ✘ No
MJBizDaily[28] No email interview with rep ? ? ✘ No
BI, Lee[29] Yes seems to be secondary & independent ~ WP:BI No run of the mill, not much focus on company, doesn't meet CORPDEPTH ✘ No
BizJournals (not sure of correct link so evaluating both [30] and [31] No quotes from rep Yes ? ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete. I find myself agreeing with siroxo's analysis. Thanks for putting together the source assessment table! None of the available sources meet all the standards of WP:NCORP, which means we don't have any sources suitable for establishing notability. The keep !voters really haven't addressed these concerns, and we can't establish notability based on a large volume of unsuitable sources. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge !vote ... I do think there is insuffient material for a standalone article. What about a section in the MedMen article?
User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a bit in MedMen could make sense, there's a fair amount of non-SIRS coverage there. Does it make sense to leave a redirect? Maybe so, but it does seem a bit strange to redirect from one company to another. But maybe that's my own non-NPOV corporate perspective and a redirect like that is perfectly fine from an encyclopedia-building perspective. —siroχo 04:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Could those arguing to Keep this article counter the source analysis that shows little reliable sourcing in the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per siroxo's thorough analysis of the article's sources. GuardianH (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because significant portions are quotes, doesn't mean it isn't independent. Southern Maryland Chronicle and CNBC, for example, also include lots of other third-party information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belichickoverbrady (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources meet WP:ORGIND. As a deeper evaluation of those two sources:
  1. The Southern Maryland Chronicle is quite clearly not independent and has clear signs of churnalism. Parts not in quotes include, for example, As the doors of Verilife’s dispensaries open to recreational users, the company’s experienced staff will be ready to provide the highest quality cannabis products and educate consumers on responsible usage. By leveraging their extensive knowledge and expertise, PharmaCann aims to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for all customers. and PharmaCann’s Maryland Verilife dispensaries have been at the forefront of the state’s medical cannabis industry, catering to patients’ needs for several years. Now, with the expansion into recreational sales, the company is poised to meet the demands of a broader customer base while adhering to stringent regulatory standards.
  2. The CNBC article is filled with information attributed to the CEO of MedMen (Bierman) who were attempting the acquisition at this time as well as referecncing a press release. Most of it is attributed even if not quoted. There is an possibly independent attribution to the Cowen Group of a prediction that is based on the (now failed) acquisition. It's difficult to evaluate the independence of that single sentence, but we do not have to, one statement attributed to another party along with some notes about share prices would not make this a SIRS source.
—siroχo 00:14, 16 August 2023 (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 00:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Allen (4x4 writer)[edit]

Jim Allen (4x4 writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Tagged as not meeting the notability guideline for biographies since 2018. Schierbecker (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salted and then canned meat product was indefinitely blocked as "an obvious sock" within 70 minutes of their first edit.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD received two editor's support for Deletion but they were both blocked so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 13 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher R. Swanson[edit]

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

Article appears to be written (almost) entirely by user Ctlanning659, presumably Sheriff Swanson's (now former?) executive officer Captain Todd Lanning. Page is lacking Notability and is often written like an advertisement/resume. Essentially none of listed initiatives and events appear notable enough to justify a biographical page. The only potentially notable exception being Sheriff Swanson's one-time participation in the George Floyd Protests, though even this seems to fall under Wikipedia:Notability (People)#People_notable_for_only_one_event and could most definitely be moved into the greater George Floyd Protests article if deemed important enough. A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Police, and Michigan. Curbon7 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry if this is a stupid question, but presumably US sheriffs are not automatically notable under NPOL? Ingratis (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, sheriffs and other county officials do not pass WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I wanted to check, as I've seen it argued the other way. Ingratis (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Also, in addition to what others have pointed out, see WP:NRV. No one is inherently notable simply because of their position. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no claim of notability beyond that imputed to his position, and US sheriffs are not (and should not) be assumed notable. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failure of WP:GNG too, in addition to WP:NPOL, as Curbon7 pointed out. GuardianH (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The NY Times is interesting, but it's one event. Flint is a mid-sized city, not small, not not terribly large, so holding a positing for the city could be notable, but isn't with what we have. Other than marching in the protest, there is nothing for GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NPOL, is just a local elected? official, and is weirdly promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per suspected COI/WP:BLP1E. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. County sheriffs are not "inherently" notable, but the notability claim here essentially boils down to a WP:BLP1E rather than a substantive claim of permanent international significance. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2023 (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 Bob van Luijt. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Core (album)[edit]

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

Album does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Secondary coverage appears to consist of 3 reviews, only one of which (from All About Jazz) exceeds a paragraph in length. StereoFolic (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bob van Luijt: Found no additional material. Artist's notability (assuming he is notable which I find questionable from a brief look at his article) appears to primarily be in the technology field rather than music so the likelihood of finding more on the latter seems unlikely. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the artist is likely notable today due to his involvement with Weaviate, but I do think closer scrutiny is warranted because I have a suspicion some undisclosed WP:COI has occurred in articles relating to him. This AfD comes out of an examination of related pages after I reverted a suspicious IP edit. See also this AfD on another project of the artist's, mostly written by the same account as this one. StereoFolic (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Not sure the musician passes the GNG. The album doesn't. Van Luijt has not been nominated so redirecting is the right course of action, given that there is sufficient coverage for a redirect. gidonb (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb, I don't think the artist passes notability, the article doesn't cite anything on him climbing the charts or any kind of certification, and there are couple of primary sources like Github, the article mostly cites that he went to school.shelovesneo (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
shelovesneo, between the lines, you could have read that this is also my concern. But I haven't done the research yet to say anything with certainty. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it! Right now: not nominated. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you or anyone has the time to research further and determines the artist page warrants nomination, I would be interested to review and weigh in. I'm on the fence at the moment. StereoFolic (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is the focus of articles in De Telegraaf, FD, and Volkskrant, and passing mentions in the NRC and AD. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Limey (band)[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this was pre-digital era it's quite likely that a good bit more will be verifiable as sources are discovered to expand the article. —siroχo 06:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded the article and added a few sources. Album releases and coverage are sufficient for notability. There was coverage during the time of the band's existence, although it will be in print sources, so some of it may be hard to find. --Michig (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is enough reliable sources coverage for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Pre-internet press may be hard to find, but meets wikipedia keep criteria by having multiple releases on a major label, although they don't appear to have been particularly successful or noteworthy. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Osarius 13:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchell Cinque Magee[edit]

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

Interesting case, not finding much of any coverage of this person beyond activist websites. Almost lack of news sourcing about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to a reference library until the end of the week but google scholar shows mentions in 7 different journals and google books similarly shows numerous results. This article was meant as a stub to be built upon by others. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 00:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re the sources you provided - very good. I'm not changing my "delete" above, but thanks for the sources. — Maile (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a final time. Right now we're looking at no consensus. Any thoughts on the sources Central and Adams posted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Salvino[edit]

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

PROMO for an individual with no sourcing in RS found. Article is a brief career summary, not much indicating notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The New York Times coverage of the film might be notable, could perhaps redirect there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed, I agree that NYT coverage is pretty promising Between the Shades. That piece probably counts for GNG for the movie, because there's a lot of background and editorial voice not dependent on the interview. The movie may meet GNG, here's a review on ProQuest, 235 words [41]. If there is consensus for it I could write a stub or start class article for the movie for a redirect. —siroχo 04:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a really good idea. Would that save the Jill Salvino Wikipedia page from being deleted? If so I am all for it. Please write the stub or start class article for Between the Shades if this can work. I support this. Ricktheelectric (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start a draft and we'll see where we get. —siroχo 01:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I have written up Draft:Between the Shades. We have 3 in-depth reviews from reliable sources, two are fully independent, while one discloses the author's prior support for the film. We have the NYT interview that has bits of independent SIGCOV, and another 2 background pieces from a single source (author/publication). I think the film meets WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I will move it out of draft sometime soon, given the large amount of coverage we have for it.
    The question now is whether this film means this article's subject meets WP:DIRECTOR.3. —siroχo 02:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after working on the Between the Shades article I'm mostly convinced that this subject meets WP:DIRECTOR.3. —siroχo 09:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Between the Shades. There is coverage related to the film in e.g. the NYT Apr. 2019, Los Angeles Blade Jun. 2018, a PFLAG blog announcement quoting the Los Angeles Blade, a review in Film Inquiry July 2017, a review from Video Librarian Apr. 2019, and screening announcements from Newsday 2017, 2018. WP:DIRECTOR#3 includes, The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; there does not appear to be a collective body of work supported by multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or indications that Between the Shades is a "significant or well-known work" - for example, the film does not appear to be widely-covered, or subject to scholarly analysis, or to have won awards or other significant critical attention. I did not find more independent, reliable, and secondary coverage to help support WP:BASIC or other notability for Salvino in searches online and at the Wikipedia Library. Beccaynr (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a final time. Thoughts on the article after Siroxo created Between the Shades?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Siroxo's work essentially. Found some more results online: https://www.chroniclenewspaper.com/home/unitarian-universalist-meeting-house-to-screen-between-the-shades-CX563370, https://www.nywift.org/nywift-member-jill-salvinos-between-the-shades-now-on-itunes/, https://wahealthalliance.org/between-the-shades-director-jill-salvino-talks-with-the-alliance/. The NYTimes article is okay, wish there was more coverage but probably good enough. - Indefensible (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The additional sources offered above do not seem to help support having an article about Salvino and an article about the film:
    • The Chronicle source is a press release (the byline is the location of the screening) announcing a screening of Between the Shades, not an independent secondary source that can support notability of the film or Salvino.
    • The NYWIFT announcement of "NYWIFT member Jill Salvino’s documentary Between the Shades is now available on iTunes" recycles content from The New York Times and quotes Salvino. This is not an independent secondary source that can support notability for the film or Salvino.
    • The Washington Health Alliance blog interview with Salvino briefly notes she "travels the country opening hearts and minds" showing Between the Shades (without further detail), and focuses on promoting an upcoming event hosted by the Alliance, featuring the film and a panel discussion. This interview and promotional announcement does not appear to be usable for supporting notability of the film or Salvino.
    Based on the independent and reliable coverage I have been able to find, sources seem to cover Salvino in a limited manner and only in the context of Between the Shades, and the coverage about her work and career also does not seem to be WP:SUSTAINED or in-depth in a way that permits us to write a reasonably balanced biography. Beccaynr (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not great I agree but likely just barely good enough as I wrote earlier. If Between the Shades is notable enough then I think we should also keep this article for the director responsible. So based on the work by Siroxo on Between the Shades, I think we can justify letting this slip by using the NYTimes and other refs in aggregate. - Indefensible (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2023 (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. I am not a fan of these articles but I see a Weak Keep consensus here after 3 relistings so this has to be brought to a close. But those preferring a Merge should take their argument to the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Parry Fry[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. The current sources lack the independent coverage needed to meet WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Week keep I suppose the Miss Teen USA is notable, but there is no sourcing in the article and I can't find any (it's from that very early internet era, so might not be found online). The rest seems rather non-notable, going to school, being a vegan.
    Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sustained coverage for different reasons over 20 years – I've updated the article and added more references ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Miss Teen USA 2000. We have coverage at the time for winning, which is really more about the notability of the event. The rest of the sources appear to be brief mentions and material written by the subject, not about the subject. Per WP:GNG and especially WP:NOPAGE, merge to the parent article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge and Redirect option vs. Keeping the article as is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough WP:SIGCOV. McFilet O' Fish Fan (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO#1 as a winner of a well known award. The fact that she gets only brief mentions doesn't disqualify her because sources can be tacked together under WP:BASIC. There was some (fairly inoffensive) personal information in the article that completely lacked sourcing and I deleted it conservatively out of privacy concerns - if it wasn't published elsewhere it probably shouldn't be publicised here. Oblivy (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now there's no consensus, closely leaning towards keep. Relisting for a final time to hopefully find that consensus. Any thoughts on the suggestion for Merge/Redirecting to Miss Teen USA 2000?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think the idea of merging into Miss Teen USA 2000 is wise. It seems that many of the winners do have their own page, though the lack of references & notable elements in Miss. Fry's article would make it well suited to a merge. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_13&oldid=1171425093"