Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 04	June 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Borawski[edit]

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

Relies on online database as a source. Found no significant coverage of the subject, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting stats from worldfootball.net played a fair bit of club and European games. It's hard to get through some of the google results for this name. It could be possible to pass GNG, but I don't have my hopes up, I'd guess this player would only have enough to be notable to Polish wiki and not the English version. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I cannot find anything to see NBIO met. According to pl wiki, he played in GKS Katowice and such, so perhaps he meets NFOOTYBIO, if it still exists? But the article needs to be expanded from the current sub-stub, and sourced, otherwise, it's just not acceptable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Przegląd Sportowy has a detailed interview with Borawski, but the secondary coverage is lacking. I'll look around some more, as it appears he was an important player for Katowice before the devastating injury. Jogurney (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sport.pl has a paragraph on his career as well. Jogurney (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gazeta Wyborcza has an interview that appears to go into more detail (with more secondary coverage) but it's paywalled so I can only see the first 3 paragraphs. I'm leaning towards !weak keep now. Jogurney (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources provided above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think the article narrowly passes WP:GNG with some secondary coverage in a couple of in-depth interviews as well as a batch of lower-quality coverage. He was a regular starter for GKS in the Polish top division for five seasons, and a Polish cup-winner in the first season with GKS. Some of the coverage focuses heavily on his unusually nasty injury, but I think there's sustained interest as all of these articles are post-retirment. Jogurney (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barely passes notability. per Jogurney this interview contains more coverage about him as I was able to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunitaWorker (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Jogurney findings. Govvy (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Piotrus:, Per above. Besides the sources above, I found [1] and [2]m among other sources. Definitely has offline sources, having clearly been topic of interest in Polish football. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping. A mention in passing in an article about name Grzegorz in a minor Polish football portal, and some video report - I think I'll stick with my vote above. PS. That said, an interview in Wyborcza calling him "one of the best players of GKS in the 90s" counts for something (and for the record, I have access to the full version of this article) - but I think it's still pretty borderline. I'll change my vote to abstain for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources given. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per new sources. Suonii180 (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep new sources seem sufficient Karnataka (talk) 19:30, 12 June 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!} 23:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Green (field hockey)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, South Africa, and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete there are no sources on Google and in the article. Adler3 (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)~~Strike banned editor. Nfitz (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the fact that it's an extremely common name makes it hard to determine coverage one way or the other. Certainly with 51 international appearances we would expect him to be notable. St Anselm (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails SIGCOV and the two references on the page are profiles and interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunitaWorker (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 June 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!} 23:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MUN Society Belgium[edit]

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

The article lacks notability and there are accusations of evident autobiography by an editor with close connection to this subject. The coverage of the topic is not significant in third-party sources. Chiserc (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a well-written article, so sympathise with the nom, but the MUN Society Belgium seems notable with SIGCOV pieces in quality RS in Belgium like: The Brussels Times, the La Libre Belgique, the L'Echo, and even being received by the Belgian Monarchy. There is more if needed? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aszx5000 and their sources. @Chiserc: Please remember to conduct WP:BEFORE searches before nominating an article for deletion, to ensure that there are not reliable sources for it. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources given. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:48, 10 June 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 12:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 Biathlon World Cup statistics[edit]

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 FIFA World Cup statistics. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is just a detailed version of 2006–07 Biathlon World Cup, without sources to support the data in it. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2006–07 Biathlon World Cup statistics was a previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Tutwakhamoe. Not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 6 June 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 00:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aisulu Azimbayeva[edit]

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

not notable as WP:NACTOR or as a TV host. No reliable sources NortonAngo (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of low depth coverage and mentions in Kazakh and Russian web media and non-RS but nothing in-depth or RS. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject doesn't show any significant neutral coverage.Kinkordada (talk) 17:05, 11 June 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!} 23:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhadevi BMC School[edit]

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

Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a quick search on Google i found this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. But all these references either passing mention or do not pass WP:SIGCOV. Gothamk (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:13, 10 June 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!} 23:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Aaron[edit]

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

I am not seeing the case for notability for this subject, nor the coverage in reliable sources beyond the one source of indeterminate utility currently cited in the article. It does not help that the article was created by an SPA named "User:Innervisionrecords". I note that this was PRODed by User:Vikipolimer last year, and deprodded by User:AllyD on the PROD eligibility grounds. BD2412 T 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not meeting any criteria, no reliable sources Citations101 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was a BLP PROD which was placed on the article in June 2022; I removed it because the article was carrying several external links. "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. " So nothing in the placing or removal of the BLPPROD notice concerned whether the subject is notable or not (though obviously these various reviews should be taken into account for this AfD). AllyD (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @AllyD: No offense intended. This could have been PRODed under regular PROD principles without BLP being invoked, but that was the choice of the editor adding the PROD tag. BD2412 T 22:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am unfamiliar with Aaron's music but a summary and some evaluation of available sources regarding this subject may aid evaluation here:

2002: Performed in ensemble for Steve Reid's Dream Scapes project (Tampa Bay Times, passing mention)
2007: Bylined review of Desire in Smooth Views (external link in article)
2007: Review of Desire in smooth-jazz.de (external link in article), includes summary of the subject's sideman / tv career
2008: Role in organising flood benefit concert covered in Jazz Review (external link in article) - wouldn't add to Musicbio notability
2015: Review of Soul Stories in Smooth Views [3]
2020: Bylined review of Color and Passion in Jazz Journal (reference in article)

This leaves open the question as to whether the record review sources in these particular media are sufficient to demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO #1 notability? AllyD (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of the reliability of sources reporting on this subject. Certainly nothing appears in more mainstream media, aside from that one Tampa Bay Times mention. BD2412 T 15:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is the best I could find [4]; I'm not sure the rest given above for sourcing help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion would benefit from more participation. One of the Delete votes came from an editor who has edited one day and has 19 edits and the other participant is offering a Weak Delete. I'd like to see a stronger consensus on whether or not to delete this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 5 June 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!} 23:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Youth[edit]

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

Does not comply with Wikipedia:Notability, only one citation provided and even that does not mention this topic. FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets WP:GNG. Probably rename it if required. Refs: [5], [6]. BookishReader (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources do not mention "Punjab youth" organization, they are talking about some laptops the PM distributed. FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing to see the notability. Neither of the sources given above by BookishReader mention "Punjab Youth" or "Youth Development Programme". KylieTastic (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage is about the laptop coverage scheme which was part the Youth Development Programme. I don't have time to look up again, but I believe coverage exists for the parent programme as it was run by the "government". BookishReader (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't see any plausible redirect targets as an WP:ATD, since it's not even discussed on Shehbaz Sharif. Suriname0 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 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 MÄR#Plot. After being open nearly 4 weeks there is more consensus for redirect than any other option. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ginta Toramizu[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PS. Instead of deleting this, a WP:SOFTDEL alternative I encourage the closer to consider is to redirect this to List of MÄR characters." It was deprodded by User:CandyScythe with the following rationale "PROD is not appropriate. WP:BEFORE Should instead be salvaged and merged to the list article.". I am unsure what they mean by invoking BEFORE, since mine was mentioned and resulted in zero usable sources. Given the woeful state of the article (pure plot summary with a single footnote to a 404 review of a manga volume) I stand by my view that redirect is the best SOFTDEL option, and that there is nothing to merge. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Anime and manga. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. BEFORE does not only mean searching sources. I was referring to C4: the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggested redirect in my PROD already. I fear there's nothing to merge, as explained above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wayback machine seems to confirm the dead link is summarized reasonably accurately. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll clarify that this (rather short) review of manga's 12th volume mentions the protagonist in a single sentence (a passing mention). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MÄR per Wikipedia:A&M/CHARACTER as this character article lacks real world coverage. If this is kept, then it needs to be overhauled to avoid a fan bias and the fictional accounts should be cited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of MÄR characters#Ginta Toramizu; the coverage from the article does not meet WP:GNG, though its content may be useful to expand the character list entry. Link20XX (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: if List of MÄR characters gets redirected or merged, then I would vote for redirecting to MÄR instead. Link20XX (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with his section at List of MÄR characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why does List of MÄR characters even exist? This is a franchise of dubious notability that lasted about 5 years. Nobody is going to search for this stuff. This is why FANDOM exists. Dronebogus (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This information was compiled before the FANDOM was made. I also noticed you did started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MÄR characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Rtkat3 Just a friendly notice from someone who respects both of you: may I suggest WP:REFACTORing the word retaliation above? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dronebogus: I believe the main series is definitely notable since I found some good reviews for the series in series listed at WP:ANIME/RS (even one in French and in the print publication Manga: The Complete Guide by Jason Thompson). Regarding Nobody is going to search for this stuff, while I certainly don't deny that this series is quite old and obscure, that doesn't mean the series is not notable (see WP:OBSCURE). After all, no one outside of a few fans knows about The Heart of Thomas or Kaze to Ki no Uta, yet both of these are featured articles and most definitely notable. Link20XX (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list of characters is headed for deletion too. WP:TNT threshold has been reached even if this character was notable, it has nothing usable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reslisting. List of MÄR characters has been converted to a redirect so it is not possible for a redirect or merge to this page. Is there another target page that has any support or is this headed toward deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think anyone would object to a redirect to MÄR#Characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like an alternative to deletion, and editors could selectively merge any content afterwards. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I think a redirect would be an acceptable compromise but I don't see a consensus for it yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MÄR#Plot, which provides more information on him than any of the article's sections. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:33, 6 June 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of free and publicly available university video courses[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a catalogue, so this compilation of material doesn’t belong here unfortunately. Mccapra (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists. Mccapra (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTDIR as well as WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:LISTN (none of these free courses are notable). Ajf773 (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable list. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is here to learn from. Listing the free courses online from major universities, is something Wikipedia should have. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies here. Dream Focus 06:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a link farm, and blatant violation of WP:NOTDIR --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and note attempted canvassing by the sole keep voter[7]. Fram (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well intentioned, but ultimately it is just a list of courses that are not independently notable. Also comes across as a link farm, as others have said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to another namespace I agree that it shouldn't be an article. I don't agree that it should be deleted. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about just archive it? Frzzl talk · contribs 09:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if you’re still making Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo in 2023 you probably subconsciously know your topic isn’t remotely notable. Dronebogus (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also delete because Wikipedia WP:NOT a link farm, which this obviously is. Dream Focus is the only keep voter who actually made a legitimate argument- namely that (per IAR) it’s educational so it should stay, even though it’s hardly encyclopedic. The other keep votes are asserting it is encyclopedic while refusing to provide evidence or complaining that WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, basically the scripture of AfD, exist. Dronebogus (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a simple search for lists of free course videos show a lot of sources such that NLIST seems pretty well satisfied. On mobile now but will come back to this later (didn't want the backlash to jimboposting to result in a snow close, especially since several of the votes don't even address the actual topic). It's just a matter of finding the right inclusion criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the primary issues is one of link farming, which this list seems to fall foul of. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. WP:LINKFARM doesn't say "you can't include external links". It's about a "mere collection" of external links. This is not that. Does that mean I think we should retain everything? No, not necessarily, but we do have plenty of lists that include external links -- the requirement is just that they be an "encyclopedic list" (meet WP:NLIST, etc.). If it can be fixed by editing, it's not an AfD issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this now. There's clearly no shortage of sources about free online university courses, and clearly no shortage of sources which treat them as a group. WP:NLIST is satisfied. The relevant questions are (a) figuring out inclusion criteria, (b) figuring out the right presentation, (c) whether it needs retitling, and (d) how this fits with list of MOOC providers. If NLIST is satisfied and a bunch of notable professors at accredited universities decide to give away their course content and record their lectures apart from a MOOC platform, it does not strike me as problematic (quite the contrary) to include them in a complementary list. But it's more a question for the talk page than AfD. Speaking of which, I noticed the talk page is completely empty. That's usually a first stop to resolve issues like excessive linking. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly"? Based on what, the sources provided in the article and in this AfD? I don't think so... Fram (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is about whether the sources exist. Nobody should be making a claim about notability based just on sourcing in the article and in this AfD. So yes, clearly, as based on even the most cursory effort. Are you really going to say that in your search to confirm the sources don't exist that you didn't find a whole lot of sources about free online courses and listing a bunch of free online courses? Does anyone really doubt such sources exist? It seems like most people are calling this a WP:NOT issue rather than a WP:NLIST issue, after all, and in that case the other part of what I said applies: the topic is solid, and the rest is fixable through editing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why you can't then support your claims with the results of these "most cursory effort"s, instead of simply claiming that they "clearly" exist? Fram (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that something isn't notable means sources don't exist. Any reason why you can't then support your claim with the results of your own searches? If we're being real, though, I'm just working on other things and don't feel like taking a half hour out of my day to performatively show you that -- shock -- people have written "free online courses" before simply because you can't be bothered to do so. I'll save that for the niche topics where coverage is actually controversial. If people looked at the amount of coverage for free online courses and decided to !vote delete based on that coverage, I can't see where my linking to a few sources is going to change much. Again, my presumption is that most people aren't going to be !voting delete based on NLIST. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In practice the burden of proof lies on the keep voter because lack of notability is presumed until proven othetwise. Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus and Rhododendrites. Sandizer (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. There are probably tens of thousands of such courses in the world, especially post pandemic. It's also a very US centric and English speaking world biased list. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is English Wikipedia… Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I could puke up a bunch of alphabet soup about WP:NOT and WP:LISTN (note that they do not say "every article that has this stuff in it must immediately be deleted"). What it essentially comes down to is whether Wikipedia exists as a resource for its readers to, yes, use. This page looks like ass, which means it is not useful as an encyclopedia article. It should be fixed, either by being split, having the course descriptions trimmed greatly, or by being taken out of a table and into a list. But when that is said and done, if it is indeed the case that we have a bunch of rules that say we should delete reliably sourced content on an obviously notable encyclopedic subject (I don't think we do, but let's say arguendo that we did), then fooey to the rules, and we should establish new ones. jp×g 09:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do keep voters keep baselessly insisting this is “obviously” notable and treating WP:USEFUL as if it’s a guideline for keeping? Dronebogus (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote literally did not address anything about this article, but you're badgering others? This low-effort non-contribution plus sniping/griefing seems to be a pattern. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My vote wasn’t very good, yes, but neither is “it’s just notable, you know it is, trust me on this, if you don’t believe me go on Google and slog through dozens of potential sources”. Dronebogus (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve since added an addendum. Dronebogus (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Overall, useful as a resource, and reasonable content for an encyclopedia. Improvement would be desirable to make less US-centric. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially ITSUSEFUL, which, if anything, is a reason to not keep. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL. Wikipedia isn't an academic enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 11:10, 14 June 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Salts Lumber Mill Explosion: the story of the T.J. Salts Lumber Mill explosion of 1905 commonly referred to as “The Big Blowup”[edit]

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

Clearly not ready for mainspace but the creator has already moved it from draft to mainspace so we need consensus on what to do with it. I’m assuming the underlying events are notable but in addition to questions of format and style this looks like a large amount of original research. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The events are covered in a section of Del Rio, Tennessee written by the author of this article. That section probably needs checking for OR too. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move it back to draft space? There does appear to be a large amount of original research here, and notability's difficult to gauge with the article's citation format - not that you can't cite things the way you want to, but there are links to newspapers.com searches and not specific articles. It's also possible it's a notable enough event for a stand-alone article, though, which makes it a difficult discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 15:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Topic may be notable, but the article is not encyclopedic. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 22:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree sending to draft is appropriate for now until further work can be done on it.Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: It's potentially notable and could be a good article but it's not currently in Wikipedia format, in terms of citations, wikilinks, formatting, even the title doesn't meet style guidance. Tidy up and then we can judge the notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: while the topic seems notable (they wrote about it at the time, yes?) the way this article exists right now really does not seem suitable for Wikipedia. The citations are URL links, it's written like an essay, the title itself is extremely verbose... but AfD is not cleanup, so this should be worked on and improved. jp×g 03:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify written like an essay/analysis of the text, needs rewriting to comply with wp:mos Karnataka (talk) 19:35, 12 June 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!} 23:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phuthego Modipe[edit]

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

This article's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The article lacks Significant coverage and fails the General Notability Guidelines JoeNMLC (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Botswana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modipe has been cited/quoted in multiple Botswana media sources since 2016, including references the "nephew of the legendary Modipe" (paraphrase), and probably appears at times before web searching is possible due to the time at which he played for Botswana. So notability isn't impossible here, the internet's just not the most helpful for this one. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:39, 7 June 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.

Previous AfDs for this article:

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

The result was keep‎. There is a decent consensus to keep from editors arguing Gerard meets NAUTHOR or NBASIC. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard (author)[edit]

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

None of the sources are about him as a person and I can not find any which do. There are a bunch of passing mentions, there are things about his books, there are quotes from him in various pubs, but nothing that passes the GNG. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are quotes from him in various pubs, having now done a WP:BEFORE, I don't think that is a good-faith comment. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References don't need to be about an author "as a person" in order to satisfy the relevant wiki-notability guideline. Authors are noteworthy because of their books. An encyclopedia article about an author should discuss their contributions to the world, not their favorite ice-cream flavor. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still need a minimal amount of biographical information to write an article. If there is coverage of Attack of the 50-foot Blockchain, we should have an article on it instead of shoehorning an article about the author (who we can say very little about). -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could refactor the page to be about the book instead of the author, but we do have things to say about the author. Declaring that his activities as a Wikipedia contributor and administrator aren't "biographical information" makes no sense to me. We have one book that meets WP:NBOOK, another that has at least gotten noticed [8][9], and descriptions of other activities. That's at the very least a good start towards a biography. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom that the sources don't provide coverage of him as a person. I'm on the fence with how much the book(s) contribute to meeting WP:NAUTHOR, but lean towards no. FWIW, I'm a fan of the book, and would vote keep if I thought the sourcing/bio info was there, but I'm not seeing it right now. CarringtonMist (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His own website list of book reviews supports NAUTHOR (and I think the amount of high quality RS quoted his opinions (e.g. WPO, Guardian), supports NBASIC. In crypto, this guy is notable. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NAUTHOR is satisfied: criteria include The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or 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). Just looking at Attack of the 50 foot blockchain, it's throwing up over 13,000 ghits for me, including mentions/reviews in the Financial Times, Al Jazeera, Wired, and The Guardian. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and United Kingdom. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if this article subject is non-notable, some of the prose on the first book might be worth using in an article on that book. Is it possible to draftify with instructions to re-write under a different title? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gerard is often cited as an authority on cryptocurrency in news articles, as to whether that makes him wiki-notable, i'm not sure, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think he had a good case for NAUTHOR. His book is being quoted in UK Parliament Select Committees, BBC Radio overviews, and Euronews. He does seem like a notable author in crypto? Aszx5000 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article subject: obviously I'm not going to express an opinion on the discussion, but I'm delighted to have a second AFD. Here's the first - David Gerard (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of good RS on you since the 2008 AfD is considerable. I think not only do you meet WP:NAUTHOR, but the coverage you have in global media (per the article), shows that you are notable in the crypto space (i.e. WP:NBASIC). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage of Gerard is already quite substantial, but here are some more sources: Profile in Decrypt; coverage of UK Parliament testimony by Yahoo Finance; coverage of uncovering crypto flaw in The Register; profile in Coingeek; book review; central commenter on BBC article on edit wars, including biographical info. Fences&Windows 10:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Decrypt and Coingeek, are they considered to be RS? I know that there's generally a presumption against using crypto-specific news sources for establishing notability of cryptocurrency and blockchain projects, but does that same presumption also apply to related persons? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the refs I have added to the article (and those also quoted above), he meets WP:NBASIC as a notable person in the cryptocurrency space; he is getting referred to and asked opinions by many WP:RS/P-type quality sources (e.g. Guardian, FT, WPO, BBC, etc.), appearing on UK select committees on crypto, and his crypto books are getting cited by academic papers on crypto (he is also close to, if not already at, WP:NAUTHOR in crypto, per here). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I have a COI; Gerard is a friend. Seems clearly to meet NAUTHOR, and a page about the book not the person would make less sense given the person is often quoted in the press. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - are there any Daily Mail sources? ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cam here from DYK talk. The article was nominated there and I questioned the notability on the talk page. I now think the person passes WP:NAUTHOR. I have no relationship with the subject. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is a review of the sources. I am reviewing them solely for whether they confer notability, not whether they are usable sources in an article that's notable (obviously most of them are).

1.

Miller, Joe (6 August 2014). "Wiki wars: Do Wikipedia's internal tiffs deter newcomers?". BBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted a couple times briefly.

2:

Edelman, Gilad. "Welcome to the Zombie Cryptocalypse". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Interview with him. This could be something.

3:

Silverman, Jacob; Shure, Natalie; Pareene, Alex (20 April 2021). "Cryptocurrencies Are the Next Frontier for the Surveillance :State". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Mentioned briefly.

4:

"Don't be fooled: Crypto is going up because of market manipulation". Mashable. 17 January 2023. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

5:

Kelly, Jemima (24 August 2020). "Who's been editing the Ripple CEO's Wikipedia page?". Financial Times. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Paywalled, I have no opinion.

6:

"Wikipedia child image censored". BBC News. 8 December 2008. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

7:

"Wikipedia at 20: The encyclopedia in five articles". BBC News. 15 January 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

8:

Wark, Kirsty (26 August 2009). "Is the philosophy of Wikipedia now dead?". BBC Newsnight. Retrieved 8 June 2023. "Kirsty Wark :is joined by David Gerard, a Wikipedia Editor, and by Kevin Anderson from the Guardian" This looks like a podcast or something. The page is not loading properly for me, so I can't tell.

9:

Smith, Catherine (18 December 2007). "Wikipedia blocks users in Lehi neighborhood". Deseret News. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

10:

"Wikipedia bans posts from Qatar". The Age. 4 January 2007. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

11:

Sonnenfeld, Daniel (9 February 2021). "IDF asks Wikipedia to edit 'Hezbollah' entry to reflect terror designation". The :Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 9 June 2023. Quoted at some length, along with some other people, but for more than a brief snippet.

12:

"Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain: The Book". Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain. 22 April 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Well, this is his book.

13:

Halpern, Sue. "Bitcoin Mania Book review with a couple passing mentions.

14:

"Blockchain and bitcoin: In search of a critique". LSE Business Review. 30 October 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Well, this looks like in-depth coverage (it's basically entirely about the book), but it's at "blogs.lse.ac.uk" and I don't know what the status of this source is (is it a blog, or a newsblog, or what?)

15:

"Tech Tent: What a year for Bitcoin". BBC News. 22 December 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Mentioned in passing and quoted from a bit.

16:

Jaffe, Aaron (2019). "Reboot Everything". American Book Review. 40 (6): 15–16. doi:10.1353/abr.2019.0094. ISSN 2153-4578. Mentions the book.

17:

"ENGL 391 :: Politics of the Digital". www.people.vcu.edu. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Mentioned in a curriculum.

18:

"Sam Bankman-Fried was hailed as a crypto wonder child. What happened?". The Guardian. 15 November 2022. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 30 May 2023. A byline by him, but not coverage of him.

19:

"Central bank digital currency – nine key questions answered". LSE Business Review. 15 December 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly. This seems to be the same site as the "blogs.lse.ac.uk" one from earlier.

20:

McCallum, Shiona; Vallance, Chris (16 November 2022). "Over a million are owed money by failed crypto exchange". BBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

21:

Brend, Yvette (19 November 2022). "Celebs like Tom Brady, Larry David did ads for crypto giant FTX. Now they're getting sued". CBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

22:

Castor, Amy (23 November 2022). "'Betrayed': FTX meltdown signals end to crypto's 'Wild West' days". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 8 January 2023. Quoted briefly.

23:

Steer, George (1 June 2022). "The crypto plan to save our souls". Retrieved 8 June 2023. Paywalled, cannot read.

24:

Zeitchik, Steven (17 December 2022). "Crypto pulled off its big upgrade. Even larger ambitions await". The Washington Post. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

25:

Zeitchik, Steven (7 November 2022). "Musk sees a big role for crypto on Twitter. He'll face a tall climb". The Washington Post. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

26:

"Researchers, journalists and businesses questioned on blockchain uses". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 23 June 2022. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Mentioned as having said some stuff to Parliament. I do not know much about how Parliament works, so maybe that is a big deal (it sounds like one to me).

27:

"2Blockchain and crypto-assets: advantages and limitations". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 19 September 2018. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Same as before (note that, if you are trying to ctrl+f here, they misspelt it as "Gerrard")

28:

"Academic papers: Attack of the 50-Foot Blockchain". davidgerard.co.uk. 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. His own website.

29:

"About the author". Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain. 8 July 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. His own website.

30:

Brown, Abram. "Inside The Reddit Forum That Wants To See Bitcoin Die". Forbes. Retrieved 30 May 2023. This is a Forbes contributor article, not reliable.

I am not intensely familiar with NAUTHOR outcomes, so I welcome anyone with more knowledge of this area to say whether these quotes contribute to a notability pass. jp×g 08:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You demonstrated WP:NBASIC, the basis on most of the Keeps have been made, (and #28, which has the academic papers and additional book reviews, the "red X", is most probably WP:NAUTHOR). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This person (and in many cases his book) is getting quoted in a long list of WP:RS/P sources (e.g. Guardian, FT, WPO, BBC), and appearing on Select Committees, on crypto (NBASIC). A notable figure in crypto. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes do not make notability -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not just quoting him, they are contacting him for this opinion and repeating a summary of their discussion in their paper. That is NBASIC. You may not like him (per your comment in the nom), but he is a notable figure in crypto and is being regularly contacted by some of the most highly regarded RS for his views. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is 60 Minutes interviewing him in 2022 and calling him a renowned crypto sceptic David Gerard. That goes to NBASIC. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may come off as a stereotypical grumpy old person yelling "you young'uns gerroff ma lawn" but a twenty-second blurb saying who the interviewee is in no way shape or forms significant coverage, which is the basis of BASIC (the other part is "independent of the subject"). You might want to argue it counts towards the ANYBIO or AUTHOR parts, but BASIC? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient independent coverage to presume notability. ResonantDis_tortion 09:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now a pretty clear Keep thanks to improvements. I have met DG a few times, years ago. Johnbod (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the book reviews such as the one that says "the first real, 'no holds barred', attack on the whole bitcoin/cryptocurrency/blockchain movement" make me believe that the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR; being the first, or one of the first, or the first in a particular sense is generally associated with notability.—Alalch E. 16:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough and properly sourced. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough and properly sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 02:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author. Bruxton (talk) 13:51, 12 June 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 Southern Broadcasting Network#Analog. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DXSS-TV[edit]

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

NN TV station UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Southern Broadcasting Network. -Ian Lopez @ 10:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern Broadcasting Network#Analog: as WP:ATD. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 06:46, 11 June 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!} 20:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queijo coalho grelhado[edit]

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

A one-sentence page about a Brazilian dish that appears to be the same as Queijo coalho, only grilled ("grelhado"). There are no sources. There is no such page in the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, either. MartinPict (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing notable here. Also, edit the template on the article to not have the "grelhado". UtherSRG (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It isn't notable. Agreed with UtherSRG. CastJared (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:30, 11 June 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!} 20:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason case[edit]

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

This was a sensational incident that got a brief burst of coverage in late December 2018, but there appears to have been no followup coverage, failing WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Internet, and Chile. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:1E UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ONEEVENT cruelty, and sadly, the fine is less than impressive (a million Chilean pesos is $1,250 US). Nate • (chatter) 02:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the author created and submitted an identical version to AfC a few weeks ago. It's still pending, and the creator is blocked (only in part) for BLP vios. SWinxy (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, they had copy-pasted the draft into article space. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:1E was written for this article. Cinadon36 09:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:31, 11 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto Salesiano[edit]

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

Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User:Cunard added sources and expanded the article after the PROD, and before the article was listed for AFD. The articles from the Macau Post Daily should satisfy the Wikipedia:General notability guideline WhisperToMe (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources below per WP:SIRS.

(added 12 June) In general, the sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject, making them WP:TRIVCOV. The tone the sources are also WP:PROMOTIONAL. One of the sources is state-owned, which precludes the sources as WP:RS in principle, per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources do not establish WP:ORGSIG.

In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.


Link	Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1	Macau Daily	Yes	Yes	No, only reported on a single event, ~~potentially~~ based on a press release. Source is precluded per WP:ORGIND ("any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources")	No
2	People's Education	No, owned by the Chinese Ministry of Education	No, owned by the Chinese Ministry of Education	Potentially, but only seems to be a brief article introducing the school	No

33ABGirl (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. The issue is that Cunard had added two other Macao Daily News articles while removing your PROD, but before the AFD. It's important to review those ones too.
2. As for the ones you evaluated: This article from the Macau Daily has a headline that Google translates to "Salesian organized multiple activities to raise funds for school expansion." This is not merely about WP:ROUTINE reporting about a single development, but it is about the ongoing evolution of the school. Articles about the expansions, renovations, and redevelopments of schools count towards WP:SIGCOV
3. As for the People's Education article, note that for WP:SIGCOV, the content must be more than a "trivial mention", but non-trivial mentions could be a long paragraph or so.
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. The articles evaluated are the articles added by Cunard when removing my PROD.
2. For the Macau Daily source, my concern was that the article was potentially based on a press release. Upon reading the article further, I found that its is directly stated in the article "...held a press conference at the Music Kitchen Western Restaurant at 3:30 pm yesterday." ^(Translated). This precludes the source per WP:ORGIND ("any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)")
3. I would disregard the People's Education source entirely, as it is essentially a propaganda outlet owned by the PRC Government.
33ABGirl (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Macau Catholic Schools Association. No content worth keeping, almost all unsourced - just because it has some sources doesn't mean it is notable or deserves an article. It's a wonder this hasn't been nominated for deletion before now... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If you feel the sources do not adequately provide notability, it may help to explain why, so people can find other sources. Macau media cover Chinese, Portuguese, and English, so if the sources we have are inadequate, I can look for more. Additionally, as the school was established in 1906, I can't imagine there aren't a treasure trove of significant coverage, independent of the subject, in reliable sources from Portuguese Macau. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – sources have been added, and more are available at zh:慈幼中學. Seems to meet GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic school. Available sources sufficient for WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources referenced in the article for a pass of WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:32, 11 June 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. Star Mississippi 02:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Guanying Official School[edit]

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

Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found reliable sources from Macau newspapers in Portuguese about non-routine matters at the school. This meets GNG. Additionally, this article from Macau Business stated that there was an academic PhD thesis about this school presented in Portugal. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources below per WP:SIRS.

(added 12 June) In general, most sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. Content is limited to local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, making them WP:TRIVCOV. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources do not establish WP:ORGSIG.

In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.


Link	Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1	Tribuna de Macau	Yes	Yes	No, only reported on a single event, potentially WP:ILLCON.	No
2	Tribuna de Macau	Yes	Yes	No, only reported on a single event, potentially WP:ILLCON. (Same event as No.1)	No
3	Macau Business.com	Yes	Yes	Partial, provided a holistic profile of the school in the context of a award, potentially based on a press release.	Partial
4	Universidade Aberta	Yes	Partial, source is mostly primary research as it is a dissertation	Yes	Partial

33ABGirl (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are those the wrong links? The first two links in that table are not cited in the article and don't seem to be about this subject. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links are from the diff provided by WhisperToMe. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO what makes the Jornal Tribuna de Macau matter is that they describe the school's instructional model and how some parents reacted to it. One article stated that one parental criticism argued against how the primary school content had Mandarin as its medium but how the secondary content switches to English. In the other, the administration argued that Portuguese makes sense as students can then begin working for the Macau government (which requires Portuguese knowledge). IMO this content is different from articles being about a single incident where something bad happened at the school (but which had no lasting effect). WhisperToMe (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links are from the diff provided by WhisperToMe. That is simply not true. I opened that diff and searched for the two URLs, and I could not find them. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my error, it seems that I used the wrong links on the table. I have made the corrections to the links. Thank you for letting me know. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additionally, "Special Report – EOZGY, the Pǔtōnghuà’ school" is not in fact about a single event, but is a holistic profile of the school itself and its educational mission. As for the thesis, dissertations can and do include literature reviews, though I'll have to see how much the author reviewed previous literature about this school. In any event, I found another academic source that talked about the school's enrollment after a Standard Chinese curriculum began in 2011.

As for the thesis, the school is discussed on pages 141-155 (the PDF file places page 141 as 161/330). The author cites Silva (2011:114) on page 143 about the neighborhood which contains EOZGY. The author also cited a Macau Education Department text about the school before analyzing signage and "primary source material" generated from the school itself. Nevertheless, it shows the school is of scholarly interest in Portugal.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Macau Business.com source, I agree that there is a holistic profile of the school, based on the awards event mentioned in the first paragraph. I have amended the table to reflect this. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This meets WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:WhisperToMe. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above and WP:GNG. Article passes the guideline with the independent, secondary, reliable sources proving both verifiability and notability. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:33, 11 June 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!} 20:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CoolStreaming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN peer-to-peer network UtherSRG (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. UtherSRG (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, was unable to find anything about this topic that would help with notability. I think it speaks volumes that if you google CoolStreaming you get a completely different web service then the one here. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not notable. Artem.G (talk) 08:45, 11 June 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bose: The Untold Story of An Inconvenient Nationalist[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK.

There are no critical reviews of the book. The only noticeable view comes from Vikram Sampath who is himself a fringe pro-Hindutva writer. Editorkamran (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Politics, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two reviews in the article, they seem fine. Fringe or not, that's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it is necessary to have quality reviews. If another fringe author is appreciating another fringe author then it is clear failure of WP:RS. Editorkamran (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that not everyone is going to be familiar with Indian papers or people. Wikipedia is very US and European-centric, with an extra strong emphasis on the UK and the US. It's one of the site's more well-known shortcomings. This means that people will be looking at these sources at face value, so it's important to explain why these sources would be seen as non-reliable and/or fringe. Is the paper pay to play or does it have an affiliation with the author or governmental group? Keep in mind that the articles for the newspapers (Deccan Chronicle and India Today) do not list anything that would immediately identify them as non-RS.

If it's more the people than the outlet, a quick look shows that the reviewer for India Today is the paper's executive editor and a general editor for IT's TV edition. There are typically not very many executive editors so this gives off the impression of reliability. The one for the Deccan Chronicle (Shashi Warrier) is a regular contributor and this page about his fellowship with the University of Iowa says that he participates with them through the US Department of State. This implies that they're likely reliable as well. The third reviewer is from the Royal Historical Society - Royal and National Societies are often seen as pretty choosy on who they let into their ranks, so if the person is not reliable there needs to be an explanation as to why this is the case.

Now I'm not saying that these people and sources are absolutely 200% reliable or even making a judgment call on the book. I'm just trying to explain why these sources will look reliable to someone unfamiliar with the sourcing. Most US-based search engines (such as Google) don't properly crawl sources published in India, so unless criticism of the reviewers is widely published outside of India there's a very good chance that a search for the names will bring up nothing of concern - which was the case when I searched. Just saying that they're fringe isn't really enough in this situation because on face value the evidence points towards them being reliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I saw where you explained that Sampath was the fringe person, but the point still stands for the other two sites. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all points listed at WP:BOOKCRIT. The author is a conspiracy theorist himself so I agree that we must ignore fringe reviews. desmay (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hagiography by a non-notable author. CharlesWain (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the explanation above, I can't find reviews of the book; if the reviews are non-notable, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, can you check the reception section?

Ok, I'll give you the Deccan Chronicle review, it seems fine. I'm assuming of course the Deccan is a RS. I can't comment on the other one, I'm not familiar with the source used. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — there’s a source from India Today, and Deccan Chronicle, here as seen in the reception section. I feel as though the supposed nomination was not made from a neutral point of view. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The author is indeed a conspiracy theorist who claims that Subhas Chandra Bose (the subject of the book) was actually alive after his officially accepted death.[10] Without quality references and quality reviews, this page looks mere promotion. Orientls (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is no doubt that the book exists. The question whether it is a notable biography. WP cannot be a forum for an article on every book that is published. I would suggest that the appropriate course of action may be to redirect to the article on its subject (Bose) and add the title to a list of further reading in it. If this new book contains substantial new information on the subject, it would be appropriate for that article to be edited and the book cited as a source. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input. See DRV discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Deccan Chronicle is a review of the book, I'm expecting that newspaper to be a RS. The other review looks ok, but I'd like some explanation of India Today is a RS. The only mention in GScholar is here [11], which is connected to the Indian Railways for some reason. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it I'll have a chance to review the sources in more detail, I don't see any specific issue with the India Today source wrt RS. The content is primary though, in the same way the article from The Times of India is. Would appreciate it if participants could elaborate a little as to what specific concerns they have with the relevant sources and tie them to the relevant parts of DELPOL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorkamran, given that you started the whole AFD, If you have the time can you elaborate a little on how you've arrived at your evaluation for each of the most relevant sources (let's say, the best three)? Just a few words tying things back to a specific segment of NBOOK or FRINGE or NOT or whichever deletion related guideline you think is most relevant, because if nobody does that, I'd virtually guarantee that this will be closed as keep. In fact, I may end up !voting that way myself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to see how others respond as well. On a side note - I do want to add a rebuttal to something mentioned at DRV: someone mentioned that many books receive reviews nowadays. That's both correct and not.

There's a huge difference between reliable and non-reliable reviews. It's incredibly easy to get non-reliable reviews. You can literally buy them by the dozen. This is not the case for reviews in reliable sources. The vast, VAST majority of books released on any given day will fail notability guidelines. Some may get maybe a single RS review, but no more than that. Even landing on the NYT bestseller list isn't a guarantee of notability, nor is being a mainstream author. Those may make it more likely to get reviews, but it's far from a guarantee. I'd say that maybe 10% of what's published get RS reviews. Far less than that get enough reviews or other coverage. Reviews are still a good way to determine notability. Rather than say no reviews it's better to specify which reviews.

I'll leave that there. I almost didn't want to post that, except that it came up in DRV and may be pertinent to this AfD. In this case the fringe person should be excluded as a RS here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely that this book will be ever used as a source on Wikipedia. 3 or 4 reviews are easy to find about many books. The notability of this book is really doubtful. Dympies (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But, according to NBOOK a book will be notable if the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. So, not 3-4, just 2 independent reviews are enough for a book to be notable. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet both the GNG and WP:NBOOK (with reviews). If someone can argue that the sources aren't in reliable places, I'll listen. Otherwise this looks like it meets our inclusion requirements. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 and Hobit: There are 3 reviews. One is from Vikram Sampath (a "fringe pro-Hindutva writer" as above and here too), then there is India Today which is Godi media and finally there is a review by Deccan herald. Overall, we have only 1 reliable source while the other two are unreliable. Delete is the right option. Azuredivay (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vikram Sampath's comment and India Today's article are not claimed as non-trivial published works.
Subject of two or more non-trivial published works:
- Book Review | Relook at Netaji, the inconvenient one who made all the hard choices - The Deccanchronicle
- New book explores ‘hidden’ political legacy of Subhas Chandra Bose in 2010 declassified files - The Print
- Books with the India twist - The Statesman
- New biography of Subhas Chandra Bose with untold stories to release in February 2022 - The Times of India
Thank you. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The links from The Print, The Statesman and The Times of India are PR materials thus not WP:RS. Editorkamran (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you considering 3 links (articles) as PR materials? It would be better to explain. Especially in the case of the links from The Print and The Statesman. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Multiple sources and reviews are available from a quick search. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But which sources are reliable? Editorkamran (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources (fringe Hindutva propaganda outlets are not reliable) (t · c) buidhe 03:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The Times of India and The Statesman are fringe? Hobit (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If The Times of India, The Indian Express, The Telegraph (India), The Statesman (India) and Deccan Chronicle are fringe Hindutva propaganda outlets, then which newspapers (specifically in India) do you think are reliable sources? -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this has been more or less going along the same lines as pre-DRV, I've posted this to RSN. Maybe someone from there would be able to elaborate on whether the sources are good or bad, and more importantly, the why Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't matter what the politics of the Times of India or The Statesman are, because both "reviews" are not even reviews, but advertorials. The Print one is as well - the only one that comes close to being an actual review is the Deccan Chronicle one. Paid advertising masquerading as coverage is definitely not WP:RS. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Black Kite is right that most of the "reviews" cited as sources in the current version of the article are in fact advertorials, as is obvious from their regurgitation of a statement issued by the publisher (sometimes with attribution; sometimes without) as shown below. After we exclude these unlabeled press releases, author interviews, and coverage of book release events as non-independent, we are essentially left with the Deccan Chronicle article, which discusses the book (as opposed to Bose) in its first para, and The Sunday Guardian piece, a paean in a pretty-iffy source.

Comparison of language in purported "reviews"

...thoughts on independent India's development, the problem of communalism, geopolitics, his political ideology, and how he negotiated with the political parties, revolutionary societies, and the government.
— Times of India
...thoughts on independent India’s development, the problem of communalism, geopolitics, his own political ideology and how he negotiated with the political parties, revolutionary societies and the government.
— Indian Express
“The book throws light on Bose’s intense political activities around the revolutionary groups in Bengal, Punjab, Maharashtra and the United Provinces; his efforts to bridge the increasing communal divide and his influence among the splintered political landscape; his outlook on and relations with women; his plunge into the depths of spirituality; his penchant for covert operations; and his efforts to engineer a rebellion among the Indian armed forces,” a statement by the publisher said.
— Times of India
New information throws light on Bose’s intense political activities surrounding the revolutionary groups in Bengal, Punjab, Maharashtra and United Provinces, his efforts to bridge the increasing communal divide and his influence among the splintered political landscape; his outlook and relations with women; his plunge into the depths of spirituality; his penchant for covert operations and his efforts to engineer a rebellion among the Indian armed forces.
— The Statesman
Ghose sheds light on Bose’s political career, including his activities with revolutionary groups in regions like Maharashtra and West Bengal, his views on women and spirituality, his efforts to bridge communal tensions, and his attempts to create a rebellion among the Indian armed forces that ultimately led to the fall of the British empire in India.
— The Print
...new information throwing light on Bose’s intense political activities surrounding the revolutionary groups across the country; his efforts to bridge the increasing communal divide; his penchant for covert operations and his efforts to engineer a rebellion among the Indian armed forces that accelerated the end of British rule in India
— Tribune India
“The book throws light on Bose’s intense political activities around the revolutionary groups in Bengal, Punjab, Maharashtra and the United Provinces; his efforts to bridge the increasing communal divide and his influence among the splintered political landscape; his outlook on and relations with women; his plunge into the depths of spirituality; his penchant for covert operations; and his efforts to engineer a rebellion among the Indian armed forces,” a statement said.
— The Indian Express

This is pretty thin sourcing for a historical biography that was published a year back, which seems to have garnered no attention from historians or experts in its subject area. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Users judge the notability of the article mostly based on the quality of reviews. I don't know why most users are doing this. Reviews are not the only criteria for a book's notability, as is clearly mentioned in the WP:BOOKCRIT. Apart from reviews; newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and bestseller lists are mentioned as criteria. Thus, two independent news articles are enough to qualify a book as notable. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we don't have two independent (i.e. non-advertorial) non-trivial news articles with any depth. Black Kite (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The input from RSN solidly eliminates The Print in my opinion which brings me fully over to a delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable sources with significant coverage. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails wp:nB, as per source analysis and nomination Karnataka (talk) 19:38, 12 June 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 while acknowledging the delete !votes have some valid points and this isn't an ironclad clear keep, there isn't a scenario where this is deleted. Whether this should be under this title or a different one can be solved outside this discussion. The closure should not be read as keep at this title, as there is no consensus (yet?) as to that. Star Mississippi 02:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Dhowre[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 May 1.

Prior AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Dhowre Elba

(For convenience, and not an endorsement of any of them, the DRV had a list of possible sources.

Dhowre:

United Nations/IFAD: here, here and here (written by Dhowre)
news services: Reuters
well-known magazines/publications: Time Magazine, The Independent, NBC News, Vulture, Newsweek, USA Today, The Guardian, BBC News, British Vogue, Newsweek, CBS News, Some mentions in New York Times articles
Entertainment media: Ebony Magazine, Glamour magazine (possibly), People magazine, Cosmopolitan, Dujour magazine, Entertainment Tonight, GQ, Page Six, Billboard
other media/sources: Oprah Daily, CNBC, World Economic Forum, Huff Post, Vogue (france), Global Citizen, The Arts Guild, South China Morning Post (maybe) The Times, Multiple articles in Essence magazine, Bloomberg, The Way We Wed: A Global History of Wedding Fashion (a book) Copied from DRV. Courcelles (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Courcelles (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Courcelles (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources cited are a mix of celeb gossip (and mainly about her husband, at that) and primary sources, which do not establish WP:GNG notability. I would also suggest that the title is salted (possibly along with the others, at least Sabirina Dhowre and Sabrina Dhowre Elba), as this is getting a bit disruptive. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the sources cited above, I would argue that there is enough to keep the page. Hence, my !vote is keep. In addition, this page was sadly deleted on May 1st (as a user was said to recreate a deleted page) and without much discussion. I would further argue that the deletion of this page on February 28 was done with very little participation, with only five users participating. I thank the OP for copying this information from DRV, as that was my post on there. As a note, here is what Courcelles (the OP of this AfD) said about the re-opening of this as an AfD: "Restored and a new AFD will be procedurally started. The issue here is less the close of the discussion than the inadequacies of the discussion itself. So this close isn’t an overturn, there’s no argument advanced that Randykitty could have made another close based on the discussion. However, there’s enough discussion here to run the newer version through the process again." My comment on the DRV, apart from the links, which have been mentioned by the OP, was as follows:

I am fine with completely reconstructing the page from scratch, but I can only do that if I am sure that it won't be deleted the same day I work on it, ensuring my work goes down the drain. I would see if I could find more, but to even find these, my web browser crashed, and I almost lost ALL of the above, so I'm not going to try again, so I don't really want to try and search for more. I thought I'd at least give this a try and am only marginally hopeful this will be successful, as I've had bad experiences with AfDs before. And no, I am NOT related to ANY of the people that created this page before, I just saw it was re-created today, edited it, and then lo and behold, it was deleted again. I would think (and hope) that @User:QalasQalas and @User:Turktimex3 created these pages in good faith, as an aside. Anyway, I hope to have this matter resolved soon.

Hope that helps.Historyday01 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The users in that discussion (@Robert McClenon, @SmokeyJoe, @Hobit, @Jclemens, @Alalch E., @Extraordinary Writ) and those which commented on the previous AfD (@Onel5969, @Oaktree b, @CT55555, @Onel5969, @2001:569:74E3:4000:45BE:8C5F:EE1B:95E3, and Clear Looking Glass) may wish to comment in this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On first look, I lean “delete” due to the best-looking sources being non-independent (full of subject direct quotes) and promotional. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these all appear to be celebrity gossip articles, how they handled covid, how their wedding went. MSNBC is an interview. No articles about the individual as a person. She did this, and wore this, and her husband said this etc. Most are mentions of what her spouse Idris Elba does, she happens to be mentioned in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there are more articles, as I remember finding a good deal when searching for her before, and will see if I can find some more through searches. Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - When there is a lot of churnalistic publicity about a person, it is easier to create and keep a short article than to deal with the constant attempts to game the system, and there is some secondary coverage of her, just not much. Sometimes it is easier to just have articles about people who are famous for being famous. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Create Locked Redirects from the variant forms of her name to the preferred form of her name. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. That does seem like a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The use of variant transliterations of names that are natively written in non-Roman scripts is a common problem, and we need to deal with it, separately from dealing with people who are famous for being famous. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Cosmo and Oprah Daily sources are compelling; the fact that there exists plenty more coverage which isn't independent RS SIGCOV about her doesn't change the fact that the GNG has been met. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree. If I find any other reliable sources, I'll surely add them. Historyday01 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oprah is strong. The Independent focuses on her. Plenty of other sourcing here to trivially meet the GNG. Hobit (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are mainly celeb gossip (focused on her husband) and primary sources, which don't establish WP:GNG notability. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how the sources are primary. And while I'm unaware of "celeb gossip" being a reason to discount a source, the "mainly" means that not solely and we have 20+ sources, so are you saying there aren't two good ones in there? Did you look at the ones I and Jclemens have called out? A bunch of bad sources (and I'll disagree most of them *are* bad) doesn't reduce the relevance of the good ones. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to refrain from an actual !vote until further review, but even though I'm leaning towards a keep basically per Robert McClenon (and honestly I was tempted to throw in a comment against renominating/relisting immediately post-restore at the DRV, though I obviously didn't manage to decide to do so before it closed), I'd rank Cosmo and Oprah as maybe, but Independent leans a little into primary ^{(which given the name I guess is a little ironic ^_^)}. If downweighting celeb gossip, the reason would probably be NOTNEWS, though application dependent on judgement and somewhat subjective, so closers should likely expect some supporting analysis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Celebrity gossip articles don't add to notability here. "Wearing a red dress that impressed people" or articles like that are in no way indication of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the amount of news coverage, seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Hkkingg (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, there is "celeb" stuff, but it is all about SIGCOV in quality RS, and she has that in Time, The Guardian, BBC. She is notable, and her actions and husband mean that it is only likely that her notability is going to increase from here. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Financial Times does her BIO in detail? If we applied this bar to all BLPs, few would get through. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it is considered necessary for at least some of the content of the article to have originated from an intellectually independent source (i.e. not direct quotes) for it to count as independent for any of our coverage based notability guidelines that require that. By that metric, Cosmo and Oprah are far better than the articles you picked out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that she has a wide range of quality RS doing quite good pieces on her. This is not a "passing mentions" or an "inherited notability" case. I was surprised she was deleted in February 2023 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Dhowre Elba with this amount of RS available. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I tried to bring the page back, as the previous discussion only had FOUR users, apart from the OP, contributing, and the discussion was wrapped up pretty quickly too. Historyday01 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An entirely non-independent source is not "quite a good piece" for the purposes of establishing notability, and four participants is actually quite a lot for AfDs. Especially these days, because we seem to be seeing much less participation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at the extent of news coverage, seems to meet WP:GNG. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's basically known for being someones wife but on her own there's barely anything on her. I'm not really seeing much in evidence of notaility that warrants an article - I certainly wouldn't oppose Merging to Idris Elba if that can be done but as it stands on her own as an individual person she is't notable and the sources imho prove that. –Davey2010^Talk 15:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my !vote is WP:NOTINHERITED .... I'm seeing some "notability" for being someones wife but not for being an actual person but if that alone isn't a valid reason then you might as well dump me with the keep camp. –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Aszx5000. There are a lot of sources, some quite impressive, and they are ongoing. Do not redirect to husband. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 11 June 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!} 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyeong-Hee Choi[edit]

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

NN professor UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Korea, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a field where book publication and review is more important than journal citations, so I'm not particularly concerned by her low Google Scholar citation count, which makes WP:PROF#C1 unlikely. And her NHC Fellowship is just a research grant, not an honorary level of membership in a scholarly society, so it does not pass WP:PROF#C3. But with only one forthcoming book listed on her faculty page (the same one listed as to appear in 2007 in the NHC fellowship page) and no reviews of already-published books, we don't have evidence for WP:AUTHOR yet either. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:35, 11 June 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!} 20:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vuelta por un Chile Líder[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade. Found no significant coverage of the subject. While the articles on other languages' wiki do have the competition's record in databases as sources, no significant coverage were given to prove how it passes WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Chile. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UCI Category race and important event in the region. Here are several sources I was able to find quite easily, so there are likely even more out there: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Seacactus 13 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Seacactus; the sources found meet GNG. The event was part of a UCI Tour in 2005 to 2007 so is notable. Paulpat99 (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:36, 11 June 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!} 20:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamadadil Asif Malkani[edit]

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

Non-notable business person. Links are all PR-ish and what turns up in Gsearch is similar, PR and SEO sites. Likely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b Hii, the article seems to duplicate Adil Qadri.. i nominated for Afd. u can check it... thank you Worldiswide (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, WP: Notability. Clearly a PROMO. Maliner (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The page creator created a duplicate of this article at Adil Qadri, which was also nominated for AfD. I have redirected that article and procedurally closed that AfD, but here is the link for reference: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adil_Qadri. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON and WP:GNG, sources are promotional Karnataka (talk) 19:41, 12 June 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Katchanovski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is a WP:COATRACK for a WP:FRINGE theory of EuroMaidan that has been promoted mainly by Russian state media. Katchanovksi himself is notable neither as an academic, nor as a writer. What content is notable about the theory itself should be rolled into Revolution of Dignity. Nangaf (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Ukraine, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’m on the fence. He is also a real academic, and coauthor of the respectable Historical Dictionary of Ukraine. But I cannot confirm that he meets any of the criteria at WP:PROF. Google Scholar shows a small number of works with a lot of citations,[12] but are there enough in peer-reviewed pubs to support notability? —Michael Z. 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the only case for notability from the article itself is his Maidan false-flag theory, and IMO that is kind of like WP:1E, which can appear in articles where it belongs and doesn’t warrant an author’s bio. I see he is currently linked in Euromaidan (EDIT: deleted)[13] but not mentioned nor cited there nor in Revolution of Dignity, nor Maidan casualties. I’m voting delete. —Michael Z. 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that WP:NAUTHOR item #2 as long as the page is expanded and includes more information other than this one theory. If it can't be done, I would merge it into an existing article. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you consider Katchanovski a “creative professional” (when he held a seminar at his university and brought a paper to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association) and the thesis “a significant new theory,” it was originated by fringe websites (like Global Research.ca) and Russian state media (like RT (TV network)) in February–March 2014, not by Katchanovski in October. —Michael Z. 15:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the more appropriate guidelines for this line of thought are WP:PROF, criteria no. 1, 4, or 7, and I don’t think they are met. —Michael Z. 16:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Which "significant new concept, theory, or technique" did he pioneer? The Maidan sniper "theory"? I think the criteria uses "theory" in a different way from, say, "conspiracy theory"; it means some significant new theory in some scholarly field, for example. He definitely doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. But odd to judge him there given he is not a journalist and his books are academic. More apt guideline to check would be WP:PROF. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my nomination: going by the details of his biography, the only possible criterion of WP:PROF that Katchanovski might meet is 7 ('The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity') and that impact is essentially solely for the false flag theory of Maidan. Unless there are other grounds for notability -- and I do not consider that his written works qualify him as a notable WP:AUTHOR -- it would be better to include this this theory in the appropriate article on Maidan rather than a biographic article. Nangaf (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:NACADEMIC. As the proposer notes, the article is a mess, mainly about a conspiracy theory. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another user is suggesting we keep per WP:NAUTHOR item 2, which says says 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (emphasis added). Katchanovski fails this because the conspiracy theory is not significant. It's also unclear to me if he originated it. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it respects WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies:

Quoted in Google Scholar 1557 times, with h-index 21 and i10-index 36.[14]

"The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine?" Cited 148 times.

"The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less" Cited 132 times.

"Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006" Cited 95 times.

"The future of private sector unions in the US" Cited 88 times.

"Divergence in growth in post-communist countries" Cited 81 times.

"Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama" Cited 77 times.

Widely quoted in Google Books.[15]

Widely quoted in Google News.[16]

I would also urge colleagues to use the term 'conspiracy theorist' with care (per WP:BLP) because this academic is not widely referred to in these terms in the sources.--Mhorg (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Are you saying people with those numbers all automatically meet some particular notability threshold? I don’t know what those numbers mean.

I don’t know how many citations or whether those citations are “independent reliable sources” or indicate “a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources,” or “a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity” (WP:PROF). —Michael Z. 20:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, “widely quoted” in the news, with results topped by The Grayzone, editorials under his byline, an interview by the Tehran Times, and some lefty websites obsessed with “Ukrainian Nazis.” —Michael Z. 21:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is a well-known scholar. For example, some important Western sources quoted him:

Mhorg (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These alone qualify him under NPROF #7 BhamBoi (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of these is an op ed by him. None of them are about him. One of them (La Razon) quotes him extensively; the others are a single quote. This does not demonstrate "substantial impact". BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note above. While it is possible that the false flag theory of Maidan might qualify as 'substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity' based on media coverage, since Katchanovski's notability does not extend to any other topic, it would be preferable to include what is notable about the theory in the appropriate article about Maidan and delete the biographical article, since he is WP:1E and the article a WP:COATRACK. Nangaf (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to say what exactly was his "substantial impact" (in academia and outside). Is he an author of the Maidan "false flag theory"? Hardly. That has been debated and investigated by others. See this NYT investigation, for example, that does not mentioned Katchanovsky [36]. We can only say his claims on Twitter and elsewhere were briefly mentioned a number of times. They were usually trivial comments on current events. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, scholar academic with number of peer reviewed articles and publications, well-recognised, no reason to delete the page, other than personal dislike of his theories. Marcelus (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: Can you elaborate why you think IK is a notable WP:ACADEMIC? As far as I can tell he does not meet the appropriate criteria. Nangaf (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is influential and notable academic, author of several books and articles in scientific journals. Marcelus (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generating ~~dis~~misinformation [37] can add him some ~~notability~~ notoriety, but it does not help him as WP:ACADEMIC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about using 'Generating disinformation' per WP:BLP. The source you brought in does not use such terms when talking about this person. Mhorg (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that particular publication does describe the "theory" as refuted misinformation and cites him as the source of the "theory". Quickly checking, one can find this opinion by Taras Kuzio who says about two papers by K. which, according to him, "have generated controversy because they are revisionist and have little in common with academic scholarship." My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katchanovski's academic output is meagre and not by itself sufficient under WP:NPROF. What evidence is there of any influence on his field? Nangaf (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, he hardly passes WP:GNG because most cited sources only mention him or his work in passing, there is no more substantial coverage. These are really just citations of his claims. Yes, his claims are highly controversial and as such were cited in various contexts. Which boils down to the only significant argument to "keep" this page: he has a presumably high citation H index. But is it high enough to establish notability? I am not convinced. Looking at the guideline, Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), it says: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used.. Still, the current version of the page is sourced. A promotion? Yes, maybe. The involvement of someone "with close connection to the subject", the prolonged discussions, waste of time and claims about this page becoming an "attack page" [38] tips the balance toward "delete", in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be first deletion of the page, that I'm aware of, because it is "unconvinient". For real, the only thing that should be our focus is the notability, and Katchanovski as an established academic clearly is notable enough. Marcelus (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI editing, for example someone creating an article about himself or a friend/collaborator, can be an argument for deletion. Someone with a potential COI who also creates a disruption (such as the IP involved at the article talk page I think) can only make it worse. Hence my comment. Just to be clear, I am talking about a potential COI only by IP accounts (such as [39]), not by anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what it all has to do with this article? And especially this discussion? Marcelus (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD fell through the cracks somehow. Leaning towards no consensus, but hesitant to close as such without relisting at least once.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes as an academic, based on the number of citations. Could be considered controversial, but it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations alone are not sufficient to determine academic notability. Nangaf (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What then would be satisfying? Marcelus (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 8 conditions listed under WP:NACADEMIC. Number of citations, per se, is not among them. Typically it means professors or academics of a similar rank. Katchanovski is a junior academic who does not even have a full-time appointment at his institution.Nangaf (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 13 July 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. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to point to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Nelson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zack Nelson

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

He fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. The source added isn't sufficient. The deprodding reason "young packer ongoing career in Premier League team" is false (and irrelevant) as Nelson has only played youth football and was an unused sub for a cup game for the senior Luton team. Dougal18 (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think this should be redirected to a disambiguation page since there is also an actor with the same name who appears to be more notable than this athlete. | Actor--Kerbyki (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear notability failure -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Support redirecting to the proposed new disambiguation page. The other Zack Nelson acts in Wolf Pack, a currently running notable TV series.--N Ø 14:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just so I understand, are those in favour of redirecting asking that this page get turned into a dab page and then this article get moved to Zack Nelson (footballer) and added to the dab page and then a second entry redirecting to Wolf Pack (TV series)? If we delete the footballer article, would it not make more sense to just redirect straight to Wolf Pack? If the footballer is retained, would it not make more sense to just add a hatnote at the top about the actor since no article yet exists for him? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is WP:TOOSOON. Any redirect can be done after the deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:39, 7 June 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!} 20:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos Aires International Christian Academy[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. My searches in English and Spanish turned up the following:

coverage in eDiplomat, clearly not significant
official website, clearly not independent
coverage on International Schools Database, not significant
coverage on Teacher Horizons, also not significant

This article was PRODded earlier today, the PROD was objected to, but the sources supplied by the IP editor who objected do not appear to constitute significant coverage. Akakievich (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Argentina. Akakievich (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSCHOOL greyzxq ^talk 16:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Matt's talk 20:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding any evidence of WP:NORG or WP:GNG myself Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:38, 11 June 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 14:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camping (microframework)[edit]

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

NN web application UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to its author's article, not notable by itself but can deserve a mention. Artem.G (talk) 08:44, 11 June 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 14:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Bustamante[edit]

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

Fails verifiability UtherSRG (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. UtherSRG (talk) 13:16, 5 June 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. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High School Attached to Beijing University of Technology[edit]

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

Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added more sources. I believe the sources now in the article demonstrate that it meets GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources in the current article (including those existing prior to your edits) below per WP:SIRS.

(added 11 June) In general, most sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. Content is limited to local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, making them WP:TRIVCOV. The tone of much of the sources are also WP:PROMOTIONAL and/or are not WP:INDEPENDENT, failing WP:ORGIND. Much of the sources are also state-owned or party-owned, which precludes the sources as WP:RS in principle, per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP. While some in-depth coverage is presented, they fall into the pervious category of sources. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources do not establish WP:ORGSIG.

In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.


Link	Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1	教育家	No, published by Guangming Daily, a newspaper owned by the Chinese Communist Party.	No	Yes	No
2, 3	School Website	No, owned by the school.	Yes	No, only a brief introduction.	No
4	教育装备采购网	No, trade association website for school equipment. Article is a "success story" on one of its members who supplied the school.	No, per WP:PROMO	Yes	No
5	教师之友	No, published by 四川新闻出版局, a publication owned by the Government of China.	No	Partially, only focused on a single test initiative of the school.	No
6	瞭望	No, published by 新华通讯社, a publication owned by the Government of China.	No	Partially, only focused on a single test initiative (same as no.5) of the school.	No
7, 8	中国青年报	No, published by China Youth Daily, a publication owned by the Chinese Communist Party.	No	Partially, only focused on a single test initiative (same as no.5, 6) of the school.	No
9, 10	中国高校之窗	No, published by China Education Television, a publication owned by the Government of China.	No	Yes	No

33ABGirl (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an archived link to replace the dead link to the school's website, though this source is not independent and does not count towards satisfying GNG. However, the news sources' indirect national government or party ownership should not affect their reliability or independence when reporting on a local high school for purposes of GNG. Guangming Daily and China Youth Daily are standard news sources in China; it's not like they're published by the school itself or the school district. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP, significantly more scrutiny is applied to state-owned and party-owned publications from China, with the general consensus being that such publications are unreliable. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. There are all sorts of sources that have some level of Chinese government ownership, and some are more reliable than others. In fact, a lot of the major news organizations in China have indirect government ties; if we were to arbitrarily exclude all of these sources, we would lose a lot of important and generally reliable sources for China-related topics. I'm not sure why you linked WP:DEPS, as none of the cited sources are listed there as far as I can tell. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replacing the dead-link, I've updated SIRS table to include my assessment of the source. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. The sources added by Mx. Granger (talk · contribs).
2. Gao, Yingqiu 高盈秋 (2015). "给每一个孩子插上腾飞的翅膀" [Give every child the wings to take off]. 教育家 [Educator] (in Chinese). No. 11. ISSN 2096-1154. Retrieved 2023-06-05 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "北京工业大学附属中学(以下简称"工大附中")始建于1957年,一校三址分布在CBD核心区域,是一所集小学、初中、高中为一体的十二年一贯制学校。经过半个多世纪的发展,学校先后被评为北京市示范校、北京市科技示范校、北京市金鹏科技团、翱翔计划生源校等。学校总占地140亩,共有65个教学班,2000多名学生,教职员工277人,其中特级教师10人,高级职称教师75人,中级职称教师72人,省、市级骨干教师8人,区级学科带头人、骨干教师、优秀青年教师34人,硕士以上学历和研究生课程班结业人数122人。"
  From Google Translate: "The High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology (hereinafter referred to as "High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology") was founded in 1957. It has three sites located in the core area of the CBD. It is a 12-year consistent school integrating primary school, junior high school and high school. After more than half a century of development, the school has been rated as Beijing Model School, Beijing Science and Technology Model School, Beijing Jinpeng Science and Technology Group, and Aoxiang Program Student Source School. The school covers a total area of 140 acres, with a total of 65 teaching classes, more than 2,000 students, and 277 faculty members, including 10 special-grade teachers, 75 teachers with senior professional titles, 72 teachers with intermediate professional titles, and 8 provincial and municipal backbone teachers. There are 34 district-level academic leaders, backbone teachers, and outstanding young teachers, and 122 people who have completed a master's degree or above and graduate courses."
3. Wang, Xuejin 王学进 (2002). "男女分班就能预防早恋吗？" [Can gender separation prevent puppy love?]. 教师之友 [Friends of Teachers] (in Chinese). No. 11. ISSN 1816-076X. Retrieved 2023-06-05 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "今年，北京工业大学附属中学也对这种新的模式进行尝试—学校将新入学的高一年级学生分为五个男生班和五个女生班，各占一个楼层进行教学。"
  From Google Translate: "This year, the High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology is also trying this new model—the school divides the newly enrolled first-year students into five boys' classes and five girls' classes, each occupying a floor for teaching."
4. Teng, Chaoyang 滕朝阳 (2002). "隔离不是个好办法" [Quarantine is not a good idea]. 瞭望 [Lookout] (in Chinese). No. 40. ISSN 1002-5723. Retrieved 2023-06-05 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "据9月14日北京某报报道，继去年上海市八中在高一年级中实行男女分班教学的新模式后，今年，北京工业大学附属中学也在高一年级对这种模式进行了尝试。"
  From Google Translate: "According to a report by a Beijing newspaper on September 14, after Shanghai No. 8 Middle School implemented a new model of male-female class teaching in the first grade last year, this year, the High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology also tried this model in the first grade."
5. "北工大附中男女分班家长支持众说纷纭等待检验" [Parents of the High School Affiliated to Beijing Institute of Technology support the separation of boys and girls into different classes, waiting for testing]. China Youth Daily (in Chinese). 2002-09-23. Archived from the original on 2023-06-05. Retrieved 2023-06-05 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "女生班的同学感觉，没有男生的课堂气氛比较沉闷。“男生在时，会接老师的话岔儿，课堂很活跃，现在太闷了。尤其是上理科课时，基本上没人回答问题。”一位女生说。"
  From Google Translate: "When the reporter arrived at the High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology, it was just after school time. The second floor where the boys' classes were located was very lively, with the boys playing and making loud noises; the third floor where the girls' classes were located was relatively quiet."
6. "为防止早恋北京高中首次出现男女分班" [In order to prevent puppy love, Beijing high school has separate classes for men and women for the first time]. China Youth Daily (in Chinese). 2002-09-14. Archived from the original on 2023-06-05. Retrieved 2023-06-05 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "继去年上海市八中在高一年级中实行男女分班教学的新模式后，今年，北京工业大学附属中学也对这种新的教学模式进行了尝试。学校将新入学的高一年级新生分为五个男生班和五个女生班，各占一个楼层进行教学。"
  From Google Translate: "After Shanghai No. 8 Middle School implemented a new model of teaching male and female students in separate classes in the first grade last year, this year, the High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology also tried this new teaching model. The school divides the newly enrolled first-year freshmen into five boys' classes and five girls' classes, each occupying a floor for teaching."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow High School Attached to Beijing University of Technology (simplified Chinese: 北京工业大学附属中学; traditional Chinese: 北京工業大學附屬中學) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing the sources. As all the sources you have provided were already on the page, please refer to my SIRS above in the reply to Mx. Granger. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources count towards WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:41, 11 June 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. Star Mississippi 02:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chun Ge[edit]

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

While the Chinese Wikipedia has a better article that suggests this topic is notable, what we have is a mostly unreferenced stub that is written in a confusing way and does not suggest the notability of its topic at all - it's just some poorly written digression about some singer's nickname, that maybe became some Internet slang (as the category implies) or meme (if we trust the lead, referenced to what may be, according to my translation of the source, a blog...). Sigh. I am afraid there is nothing salvageable, and WP:TNT is in order, unless someone can rewrite it from scratch. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Internet, and China. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – seems to be notable based on the sources at zh:春哥. The article could certainly use work, but it's an okay starting point and doesn't need TNT. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to have significant coverage on the chinese wiki (春哥), just needs improvement on the english wiki. i have added an expand from chinese template to hopefully help the article's improvement. greyzxq ^talk 16:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:41, 11 June 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 Characters of Half-Life. Daniel (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vortigaunt[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG and has been neglected for almost decade. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE somehow. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to franchise page, per nom. Not much else to say, no SIGCOV. Same as Headcrab. The amount of primary and unreliable/userg/walkthrough sourcing in use here is beyond bad. -- ferret (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even Combine (Half-Life) isn't notable, worst of all its a GA. Sometimes Wikipedia needs more hammer. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well you gotta remember the time a lot of these were done too. Wikipedia was still "young", we were looking for any references we could to keep articles afloat, and there were a lot more active editors. I don't think either someone expected the Niemti situation where he abused resources to such an extent it caused a flood of weak articles that forced the standards up over time as people looked back.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I couldn't find much about Vortigaunts in reliable sources, though the Combine may be notable with sources not detailed within the article itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on it. It is much better unlike before. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No sources for notability. Are we really down to using plush toy reviews for character notability? QuicoleJR (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggested merging headcrabs to a “reoccurring elements” section on the franchise page, maybe the vorts could go there? But they’re also a race of sentient hive-minded beings so they could also count as a character(s?) in their own right. Dronebogus (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with a "reoccurring elements" or "species" section. As long as there's something to merge them to. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of Half-Life and create a subsection for the species (Headcrab, Vortigaunt, and Combine, though not necessarily merging Combine). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A "Universe of Half-Life" article could and should be drafted up, which discusses concepts like Headcrab and Vortigaunt or other "reoccuring" elements suggested by other editors which may be too weak to stand on their own. Haleth (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so - all that could easily be explained in the series article. It is still fairly short with a lot of it being taken up by a "related games" list that doesn't... really need to be there for the most part? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. We just need short explanations of major creatures, places, and things at the main article. If you want in-depth info there’s the Combine OverWiki (which uses some great potential sources to look into btw) Dronebogus (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main series Dronebogus (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While a merge is harmless, I'd definitely recommend a "substantial" merge. There does appear to be at least some significant coverage here, so this shouldn't be a redirect to a single sentence in the main Half-Life franchise article - should go to Characters or Universe of, and have its own section IMO. SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:41, 11 June 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 00:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gergana Kochanova[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL with no viable third-party coverage before and after her death. Article a stub with no substantial content for fifteen whole years. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First runner up might be notable if we had a ton of sourcing, there doesn't appear to be any. Some articles about her death, but she wasn't really notable before passing away. Sources look ok, a few dozen hits in Bulgarian in Gnews, not sure which are reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 5 June 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 00:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoya Khan[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Only has one "notable" role in A Shyam Gopal Varma Film (2015) [40]. Cannot find a single source talking about her beauty peagent or her television career. Everything here is about the Bhojpuri actress of the same name. DareshMohan (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Fashion, Beauty pageants, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator.Kinkordada (talk) 17:17, 11 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naika Foroutan[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. President/leader of a few non-notable academic societies. I've tried to find any independent coverage on her and found little to nothing. A few interviews, but interviews are not by themselves indicative of notability, and an article from DW with a one-off mention of her. She is a professor at Humboldt University but I'm not sure that makes her notable. Jaguarnik (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - the arguments made by the editors below show that Foroutan indeed does have notability, being well-cited in her field and having a study that she conducted receive coverage by DW. I made a mistake. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Full professor at Humboldt is suggestive of likely notability (although not passing any notability criteria by itself), and I think she has anough citations (four publications with triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar, with two more close) for WP:PROF#C1, for someone who writes in German in sociology. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think she meets WP:PROF. The DW article is more than a "one-off" mention, the article is about a study she presented. With the Qantara.de interviews, I think she just about scrapes by in notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Her work is oft cited [41][42] within the German sociology field, with a lot of her work receiving over 50 citations, and a fair few of her publications receiving over 100. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 13:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second read, this is correct, and I didn't read thoroughly. That's my mistake. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The DW article is solid, the rest seem ok. The citation factor shows she's at least somewhat known in her field of study. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 5 June 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!} 23:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lester E. Holt[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline. Currently cited to two sources: (1) Find a Grave, in contravention of WP:RSP#Find a Grave, and (2) a hand-waved collection of 30 newspapers, only seven of which even mention the subject, wherein all seven repeat the same information that amounts to "airplane tester died in crash". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: has the nominator fulfilled WP:BEFORE? Jack4576 (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have, anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lester E. Holt was a minor figure in American aviation, who eventually died when the Lanzius L II prototype plane, which he was testing, crashed. He gets a few mentions here and there, but appears to fail WP:GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. I also looked for sources and found several on Newspapers.com [43][44][45][46] Alvaldi (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alvaldi added four newspaper stories that represent significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so clearly meets WP:GNG and thus WP:N. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Improvements have saved it. UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per WP:GNG. The article could definitely use a lot of expansion. Re Steelpillow's point on him being a minor figure, minor doesn't necessarily mean un-notable. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 13:08, 5 June 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. There is a general consensus that there should be some article at this title. What that article should contain (whether a disambiguation page or something else) is a discussion for the article's talk page, not AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Functional decomposition[edit]

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

Article was deprodded without explanation, so as someone who endorsed deletion I'm copying the prod here and pinging the original nominator.

Article that begins with "In mathematics" and does does not contain any mathematics except trivia. Most of the content consists of philosophical considerations that do not seem to be supported by the numerous philosophical sources. In summary, pure original research. D.Lazard (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC) (proposed by @D.Lazard:)

Seconding, this is amateur pseudophilosophy which appears to be trying to derive an original theory of metaphysics. - car chasm (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally I will add that in my experience the term "functional decomposition" seems to be used very broadly in technical contexts, to the extent that its appearance in reliable sources is no indication that an article can be written on it. WP:NOTDICT,WP:SYNTH,WP:OR. - car chasm (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carchasm: I included an explanation of my deprod as an edit summary: objection raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#PROD_of_Functional_decomposition. Sorry you missed that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice this, but since no specific reasons were given in opposition to deletion either by you or the IP, I took it to be procedural. - car chasm (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's objection was, "I think its a valid (software and systems) engineering topic." ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, the article mentions uses in engineering and computer science, but this seems not to be supported by the sources. Instead, this appears as a tentative to interpret some basic tools of these fields in terms of the WP:OR philosophy of the author. D.Lazard (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert to disambiguation~~. This is a cross-disciplinary concept with theories present in the individual disciplines (take Polynomial decomposition for example), but which do not overarch across all disciplines, making this page WP:DICT. To WP:PRESERVE the links to this page, I suggest turning it into a disambiguation page. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and TNT per User:Hobit's source suggestions. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB From a WP:BEFORE-style search, the concept is used in multiple fields, with secondary sources available in mechanical engineering [47], [48], software engineering [49], [50], and the aforementioned mathematical context. I haven't found any sources discussing the topic in a cross-disciplinary context, so this article trying to connect all of them is likely OR and has some synthesis. But being a notable topic in multiple fields, our readers are better served by a DAB page redirecting them to the FD context they are interested in, rather than outright deletion. If there are ever RS discussing this across disciplines, perhaps a summary-style broad-concept article would be appropriate. But for now, to get rid of the OR and synth, converting to a DAB is a reasonable approach. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB per the above. A wikipedia search for functional decomposition yields several hits in pages about engineering, such as Functional decomposition (computer science), Structure chart, and Structured analysis for software engineering, Function_model#Functional_decomposition and Functional flow block diagram for systems engineering, Fourier_optics#Fourier_analysis_and_functional_decomposition for fourier optics. It is just the cross-disciplinary concept that is WP:OR or WP:PATENT. In order to satisfy WP:PRESERVE, each subsection of Functional_decomposition#Applications should be integrated into the most appropriate engineering article, leaving Functional decomposition as a DAB skeleton. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Plenty of sources in the context of Engineering ([51], [52]), Math ([53]), Computer Science [54]. I personally use this term in both CS and Engineering courses on a regular basis. The article is actually pretty solid. It could use on-line sources, but that's not a reason for deletion and we aren't close to WP:TNT IMO. One could argue WP:DICDEF as a deletion reason, but the concept has so many applications, I think an article like this makes more sense than anything else. Hobit (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also some sources do discuss the generic concept before jumping into the specifics of whatever the author is wanting to talk about. [55] for example. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A first relist to allow new RS to be discussed. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aszx5000 (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe Convert to DAB. My first reaction was a knee-jerk keep, for the reasons given in "strong keep" above. However, the "basic mathematical definition" is 100% b.s. original research, as is half the example section. In fact, those two sections are so terrible, I will remove them now. Might make the article less objectionable. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:44, 11 June 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) SWinxy (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country 1035[edit]

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

AFD per IP request. Rationale is: it has no sources UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. UtherSRG (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to reconsider if somebody with much better access to archived British media coverage than I've got can actually find some sources to salvage it with, but radio stations aren't entitled to keep unsourced articles at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are sources available, such as audio of the launch of the station, but they have been deemed, for some reason, as being inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's sufficient coverage to pass the GNG with the following references.

i) Article in Billboard magazine (7 Jan. 1995) here [56] is sufficiently indepth to count as one source towards notability. Apparently, the station changed its name to Ritz 1035 (blog source) and that station is listed in The Rough Guide to Internet Radio (June 2002 edition) but just a mere mention. Billboard also published this [57] on the station's debut and covered the changeover to Ritz here:[58].

ii) The Ritz changeover is also covered in Music and Media's 17 Oct. 1998 issue https://worldradiohistory.com/UK/Music-and-Media/90s/1998/MM-1998-10-17.pdf on page 25. Takeover by Mean Fiddler Music Group reported by Billboard here [59].

iii) Brief article on falling listenership in the Evening Standard [60] and a more comprehensive article on the same topic, also Evening Standard [61] (both via Wikilibrary for those who have access). Rupples (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources presented above indicate this is a notable topic (per GNG) and satisfies the criteria for inclusion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources found by Rupples, there are an additional 46 articles in the archives of Broadcast (magazine) which mention the specific term "Country 1035", including a number of full-length articles about the station being bought and sold by different parties and changing its name and branding a number of times. These are unfortunately behind a paywall. Flip Format (talk) 14:40, 11 June 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Bertram MacDonald[edit]

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

Not notable. Previously subject of a Speedy Delete but author insists on recreating it. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this article was not created in a timely and complete way according to your rules. It is expected to be enhanced by others who knew Douglas of whom only a few are still living. It is not intended as a memorial but as actual human history of a real human being. Wp20151110 (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict notability guidelines. Please read through WP:GNG and WP:BIO - does the subject of your article meet these criteria? If so, how? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to meet your verifiable criteria. Wp20151110 (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's criteria (not mine) for sourcing and notability, links to which have been provided, require significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. A memorial site (containing listings of over 100,000 people) is not enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional link (#3) for verification Wp20151110 (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you haven't understood the guidelines pointed out to you at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. What is needed are, for example, newspaper articles that are significantly or wholly about MacDonald - not merely passing mentions or lists that happen to include his name. Medal citations serve as proof that he existed, which isn't in doubt, but they do not reach the threshold set by WP:GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Military Medal is not sufficient for notability. I'm also a little puzzled as to the posthumous claim, as the MM was not awarded posthumously until 1982 and MacDonald's citation in the London Gazette does not list the award as posthumous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Douglas' MM was awarded several months after being killed in action, does this not qualify as being posthumous? If not please advise the correct terminology. Wp20151110 (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A posthumous award usually means the individual was killed in the action for which they were awarded the medal. In 1944, only the VC and GC (and Mention in Dispatches) were awarded posthumously. It can also mean that the individual was killed after the action for which the medal was awarded but before the medal was gazetted, but in this case this is usually noted in the London Gazette (and is not), and in any case the article says MacDonald was killed on D-Day. Most mysterious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notably mysterious? Wp20151110 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 1919 Winston Churchill, the Secretary of State for War gave this Parliamentary answer regarding awards (VC excepted): "As far as other medals awards and decorations recommendations for the award can be approved if the officer or soldier was alive when the recommendation was initiated. Where through the stress of military operations the recommending authority was prevented from recording his recommendation prior to the death of the officer or soldier, it being fully his intention of so doing the recommendation is still valid if the cause of the delay is duly certified." Presumably MacDonald's MM came under this proviso. Nthep (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems unlikely if he was killed on the day he performed the action for which he won the MM. And also very unusual for it not to be noted in the LG that he was deceased. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability, fits WP:A7 greyzxq ^talk 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added signifcance and importance of the person. Wp20151110 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability as required by Wikipedia. Intothat darkness 17:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated article with details of named memorial in his home city of Halifax 78.151.195.95 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Proquest, I'm seeing three year 2000 The Daily News Halifax articles relating to the sportsfield naming. I can't find anywhere that archives the The Chronicle Herald - which is still independently owned. I don't this article can be fully evaluated until these sources are checked; this may take digging through microfiche.

This article could also possibly be merged to Halifax Regional Centre for Education#Elementary schools as it appears to be the playing field for Westmount School; though it's not clear to me if it's part of the school, or the park. The park is named Westmount Elementary School Park - but belongs to the Halifax Regional Municipality, though is missing from Parks in Halifax, Nova Scotia#Urban and suburban parks (another merge possibility). A third merge possibility is to the local neighbourhood, Westmount Subdivision. Interestingly the Westmount Subdivision already references nearby Saunders Park which contains information about another WWII (and WWI) veteran - Donald Saunders.

My advice to ~~User:Exemplo347~~User:Wp20151110 and User:78.151.195.95 (who I assume are the same editor, with an accidently failure to login) is to read WP:GNG carefully; all the primary references in the world (military records, birth info, etc.) won't get the article kept. What is needed is sources such as books, magazines, newspapers that mention and discuss him. Unless this can be done quickly, redraftification or working in your sandbox might be the best solution until more appropriate references are found. Not, I also saw an August 1944 listing of his death in the Toronto Star. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Psst, I'm not the article creator) Exemplo347 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful advice! Added three secondary sources and another primary. Wp20151110 (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - those are different, and may be better, than what I could see (without text). That's the right direction. It would help if you formatted the references like a typical Wikipedia article, using <ref>{{cite ... }}</ref> tags in the text. I've added one of the Halifax Daily News references into the article from Proquest (which is going to be difficult for people to review - first it's not available through the Wikipedia Proquest subscription - though you can see the headline from the link. Second, I accessed it through my local library account's Proquest subscription ... but even then, only the citation information is available. Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added Book reference Wp20151110 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just another copy of MacDonald's medal citation. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the recommendation for the award. The citation is a different text. It was included to clarify the war diary battle report and to help readers. Wp20151110 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's a real danger of falling foul of WP:ONEEVENT here. None of the current additions make the article more likely to be included in Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Event is indeed a risk. Though a merge could mitigate that. I really am not sure we (including me) can judge without seeing the contents of all these newspaper articles. And understanding what happened in 1949 that lead to this commitment for this particular soldier - one of hundreds of Canadians killed in the battle on that day - not to mention bigger one-day battles, such as the 2,500 killed at Vimy Ridge, and 1,000 killed at Dieppe. It's certainly not as nearly cut-and-dry as it initially appeared. Nfitz (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the problem lies. You have advised a lesser experienced editor to add references to an article even though nobody, presumably not even the editor themselves, can see the actual content of the references. Take those references out and we're back to square one. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article author hopefully logged in this time ... I have photocopies of the referenced newspaper articles and additional private correspondence. How should they be included? Wp20151110 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. There's nothing wrong with having off-line references; generally editors assume good faith and accept this at face value. But it becomes more difficult when some editors are challenging notability. I'd think (and maybe there's a better solution), that putting the articles somewhere on the Internet temporarily would be the best solution. Copyright becomes an issue (which for newspapers is, I think, the longer of 50 years, or 50 years plus the life of the author (if one is identified). Which makes copyright of anything later than about 1920 difficult - which would preclude putting it on Wikipedia, even temporarily. Though the Internet is a bit more wild-west. Nfitz (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is in need of a good rewrite but there are plenty of sources in the article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out the sources that provide the required level of Significant Coverage about MacDonald himself, rather than the one event of his Military Medal action. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes hopefully someone can improve the wording. I have done some rewriting and added several new independent references and a private source. Wp20151110 (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can see the articles in question? I'd happily take an email. Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sure, address? Wp20151110 (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain 92.26.172.228 (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
actually written by unlogged author Wp20151110 (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've examined the sources & references that have been added since I nominated this article and none of them meet the threshold required by WP:GNG. They all seem to be discussing his actions on D Day or the naming of a local park in recognition of his actions on D Day. This falls under the WP:ONEEVENT disqualification critera because, if you remove all mention of that event from the article, all that is left is the fact that he was born. That's not enough for a Wikipedia entry. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Exemplo347, I'm surprised that when you read all the articles you didn't think any of them met GNG. From the extent and detail in the articles, I disagree. I don't think GNG is the issue here ... it's WP:ONEVENT. So how would this be deleted, rather than merged to a few sentences in Westmount Subdivision - similar to how there's discussion in the Saunders Park (Nova Scotia) article about Donald Saunders (in the very same neighbourhood!) ? Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion appears to be centred on the issue of one event. Are single events not worthy of an article or is it lack of additional information about the subject? If it is the later what would be required? An example would be most helpful. Wp20151110 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks for the copy of the articles, User:Wp20151110. There's more than one, from more than one publication, that are GNG quality. The real issue then becomes whether ONEEVENT applies or not (and it's debatable, as there seems to be 2 events, a half-century apart). But even if it does apply, then this page is not eligible for deletion - it would be merged - presumably to Westmount Subdivision. I'll try add detail to the current references later on. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-intentioned, but no substantial coverage. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please give an example of what would be needed to make the article coverage substantial. Wp20151110 (talk) 11:44, 14 June 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. Three relists and insufficient participation to determine a consensus. Daniel (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Informatics Education[edit]

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

Private college lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lim, Kenneth (2004-04-16). "Informatics gets bombarded with questions - But it keeps mum even as analysts downgrade the stock to 'sell'". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "A DAY after it dropped a profit-warning bombshell, Informatics Holdings yesterday had to contend with analysts' downgrades and fend off a barrage of questions from a shocked public. ... Still, at least two analysts have downgraded the stock to a 'sell' - Deutsche Bank's Goh Keat Jin from a 'hold', and DBS Vickers' Chris Sanda from a 'buy' - as of last night. Mr Sanda, troubled by the company's accounting, operational and receivables problems, said in his report that it would 'take some time for Informatics to re-establish a track record and credibility'. 'We do not know what our target price will be but the situation is bad enough for us to believe that there will be more than 10 per cent downside (when trading resumes),' he wrote."
2. Wong, Wei Kong (2004-05-04). "Informatics' market value plunges 62% - Mid-cap stock relegated to small-cap status in wake of fiasco". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Informatics Holdings saw $150 million - or more than half - of its market capitalisation wiped out yesterday as furious investors punished the company for overstating its earnings for nine months and for its shocking losses for the whole financial year. ... Research houses including DBS Vickers, Nomura Research, CLSA Asia Pacific Markets, Deutsche Bank, Kim Eng and Netresearch Asia have all issued 'sell' calls on Informatics. Analysts are saying it's hard to value the stock when there are question marks over the company's numbers. 'A nasty shock,' Kim Eng said in a note. 'Forecasting the group's earnings is almost 'mission impossible'. It appears that the historical revenue and profit recognition policy of the group can no longer be used as a reliable basis for projecting the future earnings stream.' ... 'We expect (the) share price to gravitate towards its book value of 19 cents per share which, in our opinion, is still vulnerable to further write-off in receivables,' Kim Eng said."
3. Lim, Kenneth (2004-06-24). "Ernst withdraws Informatics statement - Auditors say move not meant to castany aspersion on senior management". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "The saga of listed educational services provider Informatics Holdings took another turn yesterday. Auditor Ernst & Young has notified the company that it is withdrawing its earlier statement which said it had no reason to suspect that senior management of Informatics had intentionally misstated the company's quarterly financial results. ... NetResearch Asia analyst Russell Tan wondered how Ernst & Young could make such an about-turn.' They came up with what was basically a blameless report,' he said. 'It's like saying at first there was nothing, but now there's the universe.' DBS Vickers analyst Chris Sanda saw the withdrawal as a 'negative development' for Informatics. 'It widens the door for potential contingent liability,' he said."
4. Koh, Joyce (2004-10-20). "A new consolidated Informatics campus in Jurong by early 2005". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "A CONTROVERSY-FILLED year has finally yielded something concrete from education services provider Informatics Holdings which said yesterday that it plans to set up a campus billed as one of the largest among private education schools here. ... Still, NetResearch Asia analyst Russell Tan was sceptical when he heard about Informatics' latest move. 'You can read it in many ways,' he said. 'Perhaps, its cost structure cannot support so many sites or maybe it's relocating to save cost. But will it lose students because people now need to travel to a new location?' He added: 'From an analyst's perspective, I am not interested in what kind of structures you come up with. What's most important is whether your brand name is still there, and if your financials support it.'"
5. Toh, Eddie; Tan, Andrea (2004-07-08). "Informatics chairman helped head off clash of tycoons - Company proposes rights issue priced at 25 cents a share to raise $19.6m". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Informatics has been hogging the headlines in the last few months for the wrong reasons, but its founder and chairman, Dr Wong Tai, has risen to the challenge with his swift action in bringing together two new shareholders who had appeared to be headed for a clash."
  The article further notes: "Analysts agree Mr Tan's proposal of a rights issue is more equitable than the private placement of a block of shares to Mr Oei. 'It's fair to the shareholders of Informatics to have the rights issue opened to them. Everyone's happy now. It's better than having a tug of war between both of them,' said David Gerald, president, Securities Investors Association (Singapore). He added: 'The share placement would also be lower than the market price and should not have been done on a preferential basis.' But some analysts remain edgy about the counter, which has dropped from its pre-crisis level of 77 cents to as low as 20 cents. The counter was last quoted at 50 cents. 'No one dares to make an official call on this stock. Unofficially, some brokers have asked clients to take a short-term punt and subscribe for the rights issue,' said a research head."
6. Burton, John (2004-07-08). "Financiers to support Informatics". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Two of south-east Asia's biggest financiers have agreed to a joint takeover of Informatics, a troubled Singapore-based computer education company, by offering to support a rights issue to save it from collapse. ... Informatics is under investigation by Singapore's white-collar crime unit after recent disclosures of accounting irregularities. Auditors warned last week that the company could go bankrupt without a successful share placement."
7. "Informatics founder, ex-CEO charged over profit statements". The Straits Times. 2005-11-30. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "ONE of last year's biggest corporate scandals had its court sequel yesterday when the founder of educational services provider Informatics Holdings, Wong Tai, and former chief executive Ong Boon Kheng were charged over inflated profit statements. Informatics, which runs about 300 centres in 50 countries, was one of the hottest stocks on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) before it was hit by an accounting scandal, a gaping financial black hole, a plunging share price and a police investigation. ... Founded in 1983 by Wong, Informatics' troubles surfaced on April 14 last year when the company dropped a bombshell - warning that profit for the nine months had been overstated by about 90 per cent or $6.7 million. ... Worse was to come in May with the Commercial Affairs Department probing Informatics' affairs."
8. Kok, Charmian (2008-07-06). Chatterjee, Neil (ed.). "Singapore Hot Stocks-Informatics Education down after audit". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Shares of Informatics Education INFO.SI plunged by as much as 22 percent after an audit from Ernst and Young saying there was material uncertainty regarding the firm's ability to "continue as a going concern". Informatics, which franchises computer and commercial training centres, dropped to a 21-month low of S$0.035 with more than 18 million shares changing hands. Ernst and Young said on Friday that factors such as the firm’s net loss for this year and financial obligations arising from its liabilities exceeding total assets cast doubts over Informatics’ future."
9. Ramchandani, Nisha (2018-07-03). "Informatics' auditors flag going concern uncertainty". The Business Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Auditors for Informatics Education's have questioned its ability to continue as a going concern in their report on the group's financial statements for the year ended March 2018."
10. "Singapore readies for a showdown over Informatics". Taipei Times. Associated Press. 2004-07-05. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Singapore investors are bracing this week for a showdown between two Asian tycoons who are battling for control of scandal-hit, money-losing Singapore business training company Informatics Holdings."
11. Salim, Ilyas (2022-10-18). "Informatics Education receives S$0.011 per share exit offer from major shareholder". The Business Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Informatics, which provides IT training and education and was first listed on SGX in 1993, had been suspended from trading in the SGX since Jul 28 this year, after receiving a notification for delisting by SGX. SGX also rejected Informatics' application for a 12-month extension to meet the requirements for removal from the watch list, made on Jun 3, 2022. It had earlier granted the company a 12-month extension on Nov 23, 2020, and a six-month extension on Nov 30, 2021."
12. Ahmad, Izham (2004-06-25). "Informatics CEO Quits as Auditor Retracts Support". The Wall Street Journal. ProQuest 398966001. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Informatics Holdings Ltd. said late Wednesday Chief Executive Ong Boon Kheng resigned, the same day its auditor said it could no longer say the company's senior executives weren't involved in inflating earnings."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Informatics Education to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Lenticel (talk · contribs), who made significant contributions to the article. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term is used for more than just one college. https://med.stanford.edu/master-clinical-informatics-management/stanford-clinical-informatics.html and https://cri.uchicago.edu/education/ among others appear when I click the Reliable Sources search button at the top of the AFD. Are they all connected? Do we need an article for this term as well as one for the company that uses its name? The article seems to be about both. Dream Focus 14:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are different stuff. Informatics is what your links here are referring to. – robertsky (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; no comments after previous two relists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 09:45, 5 June 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 07:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Vega (rapper)[edit]

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

Contested A7 Speedy Delete.

Page author insists the subject meets WP:MN however a WP:BEFORE search indicates no evidence other than a self-created Soundcloud page. There is, confusingly, another artist with the same name from the USA who also would not meet WP:MN. Exemplo347 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator, can't locate any reliable sources nor any evidence that he meets any of the WP:MN criteria (author cited #5, but there's no evidence of releasing an album on any record label, let alone a notable one). Chocmilk03 (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my comment, the author has added a couple of links. One is the Spotify link to the album which was released by Judgement Day Records, which as far as I can tell is not a major record label. The other is a link to the subject's Tiktok page where he has 55 followers. There still aren't any reliable sources demonstrating that the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Chocmilk03 (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the notability criteria and may be a case of WP:Toosoon NealeWellington (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion as this article lacks WP:NOTABILITY. His albums don't attract much attention, all but one reference is not reliable and secondary, and there are nine duplicates of the same reference(s). HarukaAmaranth (talk) 02:16, 12 June 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 and none appears likely to emerge. A discussion on whether to merge can continue on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 16:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helianthus annuus 'Russian Giant'[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing to indicate why this particular cultivar is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ive seen three or more sources naming this topic, isnt this is notable? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ive changed my mind, this can all be deduced to Helianthus_annuus. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; merge any useful information into the species article at Helianthus annuus. We don't want articles on every cultivar. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough references that make me think that this is a reasonably popular cultivar. I haven't found a reference that explicitly says so, though. I agree that we don't need to list every cultivar, but this one seems notable enough. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all convinced that what seem entirely run of the mill coverage confers notability. I would have thought that if it is worth mentioning the place would be in a section on cultivars in the article on the appropriate species. Which does not have a page. Surely a species is inherently more notable than a cultivar?TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongToneIt has sources about the cultivar, I would say that this is notable. I'm puzzled about what you are trying to say here, and why you have WP:AFD this in the first place. If you think this is not notable, I would be more than happy to hear your reason, but I would prefer a conclusion. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Because common names are preferred for article titles, Helianthus annuus is a redirect to Common sunflower. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I hear a whirring noise coming from Linnaeus' grave? What happens when (as is very common) a plant has a number of common names? Not that it makes any difference, this is a really dumb preference, since the Latin name much more informative, not only grouping related species together but also often telling one something about the plant itself.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongTone So what is your conclusion? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. In assessing cultivars, we need to look at whether that particular cultivar has a significance beyond the species as a whole, and the species as a whole has a significance irrelevant to the cultivar. For example, King Edward potatoes have a history, culture, and literature beyond a normal potato, but the normal potato itself goes way beyond the King Edward, so they both have their own articles. Landsberg erecta doesn't need its own article because although a lot has been written about it, it's only as a major cultivar of Arabidopsis thaliana used in plant science, which is the major application of Arabidopsis itself, so Landsberg erecta and Arabidopsis thaliana have little independence from one another and can be treated together. The bar for making a cultivar independently notable should be quite high. This one doesn't meet it. Elemimele (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele Doesnt it have three sources about it though? Or does it have to be significantly broad topic from its species to warrant its own article? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources about this cultivar with reasonable sources to warrant its own article. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see plenty of references that establish that this cultivar exists. I do not see a single one that serves in any way to establish notability. Even those that are not merely listings on websites offering seeds for sale (ie the RHS and the BBC Gardener's World look to me like purely run of the mill coverage. I have no idea how many commercially available sunflower cultivars exist; I am sure that they are legion. What makes this one worthy of particular notice? There is nothing whatsoever in the article to suggest it is remarkable. Certainly susceptibility to slug damage is not in any way uncommon. TheLongTone (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is probably the most notable sunflower cultivar; it's one of two cultivars mentioned on the history page of the National Sunflower Association. This is the variety that was developed as an oilseed crop in Russia, and brought back to North America in the 19th century. Most (all?) modern oilseed sunflowers have this in their ancestry. But it's not clear what to call it; the National Sunflower Association calls it 'Mammoth Russian', and it's "Mammoth Russian" or "Giant Russian" here and you can also find it as "Russian Giant" or "Russian Mammoth". There is no International Cultivar Registration Authority for Helianthus, so it is difficult to determine which name is correct. Plantdrew (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if the article should be kept or redirected…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already !voted so I'm not re-voting. But I think Plantdrew has made the strongest argument for keeping. But the history page describes the breeding history of the sunflower in general, and doesn't really get very specific about exact cultivars and genetics, and if we haven't got a clearly-defined name, there's always the risk that we'll be talking about different things. I still feel it would be best to put the information about its Russian heritage in history section of Common sunflower which will give it much better context for our readers. The fact it's referenced in seed-catalogues and analogous sites is no more an indicator of notability than the fact that a book is available on Amazon, Waterstones and Abe books etc. Elemimele (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. This one is a little harder for me because of possible maybes, but I have to go off of what I could find for sources. My rule of thumb for cultivar, variety, etc. notability is that it has to stand out from a run of the mill plant or seed catalogue entry for sources (essentially WP:NOTHOWTO policy for gardening). I don't see that here. Plantdrew's comment does have promise though if the variety has a decent historical narrative like that even setting aside name mixups. There's only passing mention in the sources they give though, so I'm still left at delete. If such sources are found, then I'd gladly change to keep (and figure later out whether Russian Giant/Mammoth Russian should be the target/redirect). KoA (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment Although plantdrew puts forward a good argument for this particular cultivar being notable, I would point out that there was no mention of this in the original article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to common sunflower; the only provided source which isn't just run-of-the-mill coverage has 2 sentences about this cultivar. AryKun (talk) 12:59, 11 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. That doesn't negate the possibility of a Merge, it just moves the discussion to the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doomfist[edit]

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

Article reception primarily focused on discussing a fictional character in the sense of a gameplay element from the game they originated in. No indication that their gameplay gave them notability outside of the game itself, nor proper discussion of the character to provide SIGCOV. Attempting to find sources that were not about gameplay ended up fruitless as well. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article is bloated with excessive in-universe and development content with no viable reception to back it up. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirect to list of OW characters and not delete. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to merge as I should've said that in the first place. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has next to no in-universe content, so would be real curious where you're seeing "bloat". czar 12:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge despite some few sources at reception, I don't think it meets notability unlike Hanzo (Overwatch), a niche character but has dozens of commentary unlike Doomfist. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Overwatch characters - the IGN source is good, but other than that, reception is very lacking. I don't see passing GNG here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While reception is part of key factors for notability of a video game character, development of that character gleaned through reliable third-party sources that provide significant coverage of the character are also appropriate as part of a character's notability. Additionally, the "fictional" stuff (character bg and the like) are also been covered by reliable third-party sources, rather than the more typical reliance on the primary work itself. --Masem (t) 18:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. 2001:4455:636:D900:94A8:7FBB:249D:9ECA (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This character was discussed and analyzed extensively in reliable, secondary sources: IGN, Paste, PC Gamer. This article does not contain any primary sources and is written exclusively from quality sources so as to minimize in-universe context, unlike almost all WP character articles. There are dozens of articles from reliable sources cited here as a testament to the character's wide coverage. This coverage is specific to the character and is not covering the character as an ensemble member. Our coverage should be similarly proportionate. czar 00:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This got AfD'd because so much of the reception was focused entirely on gameplay. In the article itself, for what was cited, there was one little actually discussing him as an actual fictional character, design wise or character wise. Looking at the IGN ref that feels like it was a bit underutilized. The Paste reference wasn't present at all. Are there more sources discussing that aspect? Because I tried looking before I did this and I didn't turn up enough to give it a decent reception section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Masem and Czar. Also, even if Paste source isn't currently found within the article, it helps establish GNG. (or as WP:NEXIST puts it, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable.") I think something that's successfully been through the GA process should at least be given some work to it before it gets tagged for deletion. I think a GA-reassessment should probably happen first at least. There are also four sources in the talk page's Refideas template that GlatorNator found; I have further found these sources: 1, 2, 3 that could help with the article. Soulbust (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Andscape reference doesn't mention him much, in fact it's definitely more an in passing comparison to Baptiste, but is it a reliable source? It looks it but I can't find editorial evidence and it's not lists on WP:VG/S.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes I agree with your point about Baptiste, but the source can still be used. Seeing how Andscape is owned by ESPN, I'd go with it being a reliable source. Soulbust (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between the reception section and the sources brought up in this AfD, there is enough to pass GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I still feel this is going to be weaker, but I'm not going to drag this out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:29, 7 June 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. It seems unlikely at this point that a consensus would emerge that the article be removed. A merge discussion, should one be desired, can be started on Talk:Mobile Orchestra. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Everything (Owl City song)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:Music - the articles cited are either not reliable sources, are focused on the overall album, not the individual song, or do not constitute in-depth coverage. Even though it is a single, it seems like this should simply be merged into/redirect to the album page. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you don't mind if I ask but which sources do you consider no reliable? Shout4Serenity (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well in order: the first source is not in-depth coverage; the second is mostly an interview (primary source) and not focused on the song but instead the singer; the third source is a random YouTube video that does not seem to be something one would count as a reliable source; the fourth is again an interview with the same problems as the second source; the fifth is just referencing musicstax which does not show notability; the sixth is again for sheet music/technical question/does not show notability; the seventh is not in-depth coverage/is just a boilerplate notice of the video being released (similar problems to the first source); the eighth has similar problems to the fifth/sixth; the ninth is the only source that seems reliable and has actual in-depth coverage...but it's focused on the album not the song itself (the song gets half a line of mention). So none of the sources show the notability of the song as required in WP:Music. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. Shout4Serenity (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Mobile Orchestra. The content of this article is adequately sourced and I would hate to see it deleted, but unfortunately the topic does not meet our notability standards. However, WP:NSONG also says that "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as ... a prominent album". Matt's talk 09:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile Orchestra/Move to draftspace. Redirect to Mobile Orchestra per WP:NSONG, but I would also say move it back to a draftspace so improvements can be made. Shout4Serenity (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stereogum, Houstoon Chronicle, Star Tribune all appear to show a more than trivial interest in this particular track. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to keep it. I just ran across it today when looking for information on the song. It was very useful. 2601:2C0:4700:9400:7DBA:33C0:B52A:22CC (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Jclemens. SIGCOV seems to be fulfilled but I'm uncertain if it's really worth breaking this song out separately from the album. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. WP:SIGCOV is met by the sources they found, and I don't think there's any issue with having this separate from the album article. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 5 June 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. Star Mississippi 16:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative density function[edit]

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

Is this really a valid dab page as is? Hildeoc (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd suggest converting it to a simple ~~redirect~~ to Cumulative distribution function because that's almost certainly what the reader is looking for, and if it isn't, they'll find enough information there to sort themselves out. This certainly isn't necessary as a dab page as it's only pointing to two things, that are in any case so closely related that they will be referred to in each other's article. Elemimele (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: The phrase "almost certainly" is certainly wrong. Perhaps you don't realize how confused students can be sometimes. Furthermore, people have linked to "cumulative density function" in Wikipedia articles, and then, confronted with the contradiction and the facts, have tried to argue about the matter, defending their use of that phrase as correct. Have you looked at those links, specifically at the way the phrase was used? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cumulative distribution function, per Elemimele. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect, I don't care which. It's definitely a helpful pointer from a common mistake (so common that Google Scholar claims to have some 53k hits for that exact phrase). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to cumulative distribution function. Having this page is merely a needless layer of indirection between the reader and the material they're looking for. XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR&: @XOR'easter: The result will be that those who make this mistake will continue to make this mistake instead of getting it fixed. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have a reference explicitly calling it a mistake, then we can't call it a mistake, as opposed to the many instances of mathematical terminology that are confusing and illogical but still in common use. If we do have a reference, then all we need to do is include a sentence or two in cumulative distribution function. Having separate pages for mathematical terms about which there is almost nothing to say is more dictionary-like than encyclopedic and scatters the presentation. XOR'easter (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few thousand pageviews annually, suggesting that this does indeed serve some sort of navigational purpose. I have no strong feelings about keeping vs. redirecting, but deleting seems misguided with that in mind. TompaDompa (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a frequent mistake of confused students. If not corrected, those who make this mistake will continue in error. The page gets a couple of dozen views per day. It is thus serving a useful purpose. And those who say people "almost certainly" mean "cumulative distribution function" should adduce empirical data to show that. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the article is to be kept because the confusion is a common one, then rather than merely telling the reader they're wrong, it might be helpful to tell them why they're wrong. I've therefore added a very short explanation. It's not sourced, because it's still in the spirit of a dab-page, and the explanation is only to help the reader access properly sourced information at the two pages dealing with the real subjects. But in a way, we could even remove the dab-template because this isn't really a dab anymore; it could be viewed as an explanation of a concept that the keep-!voters feel is a notable misunderstanding? Do please have a look, anyone, at the text I've added and improve it, or comment on whether you think it's misguided, it's just an idea.... Elemimele (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: But the explanation you added is correct only for discrete distributions, not for continuous distributions. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy feel free to change the wording to make it more general. My excuse is that this is only a disambiguation to help inexperienced readers find the correct article, which will fill in the full detail. The sort of person who can visualise the difference between continuous and discrete distributions, and grasp the concept of density at an infinitely small point on a continuum, is probably not going to be making the mistake that this page intended to clarify, and in making the article/page more general and accurate, we need to make sure that it doesn't become too complicated for its intended readership. Elemimele (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: But then there is the problem of explaining how a probability density can be more than 1 at some points. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy OK, so maybe we need a three-way disambiguation here, additionally directing to the probability mass function, but describing the probability density function as an integral that's usually taken over a very small range somewhere in the middle, while the cumulative distribution is an integral from minus infinity up to the current point?? I'll try to find some wording. I don't mind the version you've put there at the moment, but I'm not 100% sure it's the clearest way to put it for the sort of reader who's making this mess-up. Elemimele (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: The density function isn't an integral; rather it's something that you take an integral of. And not generally over a very small range; I don't know why you would say that. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy sorry, I was rushed and put that particularly awfully. I meant that it's something you take the integral of, not an integral. I've always thought of it as being something that I've used over a small range because I'm usually interested in probabilities of fairly small ranges of results, but you are quite right, and I shouldn't be biased by myself. My feeling is that for the purposes of this AfD, it's coming out very much as a keep, and the exact wording is probably something best taken to the article's talk-page? Elemimele (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the changes made by Elemimele...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per data from David Eppstein and TompaDompa, I think it's a common enough mistake to worth having the disambiguation page. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page is plainly helpful in directing readers to the right page, and it has been well improved during this AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Elemimele: I have rephrased the part that referred to "discrete values" because there is no such thing as a discrete value. Any real number at all can be a value of a discrete random variable. A discrete probability distribution assigns probabilities to individual points, and assigns all of the probability to individual points, i.e. the sum of the probabilities assigned to those points is 1. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Hardy: thank you for checking it over, and making that improvement. I'm changing my vote to a keep based on all the above discussion. Elemimele (talk) 21:09, 13 June 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. Editors do not agree on whether the category of dialing codes should be considered inherently notable despite longstanding practice of considering all North American dialing codes to be notable. One editor explicitly withdrew their !vote in this discussion pending the resolution of a centralized discussion on dialing code notability writ-large. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01633[edit]

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

I can't see an justification for a Wikipedia article about this dialing code. It's almost all cited to an apparently defunct personal(?) website. I can't find any reliable independent sources about the dialing code. Sionk (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0114, which bundled 01633 and some other British dialling codes) closed a few hours ago. From my experience in Canada, telephone area code changes invariably generate a lot of media coverage by reliable sources when they happen. There was a Seinfeld episode inspired by the introduction of area code 646 in Manhattan, I think. This is an example of the coverage, although it doesn't refer to Newport.this reference refers specifically to 01633. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the previous Afd. But it appears the opposition was because of the bulk nomination. I see no evidence of 01633 meeting WP:GNG - the Daily Mirror article linked to above is not about 01633 and the 'Geopunk' source is just some random website. Sionk (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now, because absolutely nothing has changed since the last AfD and the discussion about dialling codes in the UK as a whole is still ongoing (slowly). Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't see anything particularly notable about this particular postcode. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a postcode, and you also completely ignore the ongoing discussion about dialling codes as a set. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: What discussion? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications#Dialling codes in the United Kingdom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK struck for now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a hobby site for people obsessed with telephone numbers. Unless someone has written a non-technical document about the telephone number - unless it's done something exciting - it's not notable in Wikipedia's sense. There should be a fan-site for telephone exchanges somewhere, but this is not it. If the main exchange corresponding to a regional code got adopted into a museum, if a particular area played a big part in the development of the telephone system, and is document as such in a popular history of telephones, then it's notable. If it's just an area, with an exchange, and a history of changing its usage just like every other area, it isn't. And the sourcing of this particular code is excruciatingly bad. And, incidentally, it may well be the code for somewhere quite different outside the UK. Elemimele (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the comment about the article title (which I agree should be changed) your comments are directly contrary to what we do for codes in the North American Numbering Plan area, where every code (regardless of individual significance) is judged worthy of an article. One of the reasons I started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications#Dialling codes in the United Kingdom was to reconcile this, and avoid the need to have repetitious arguments at successive AfDs. It is exceedingly disappointing that editors continue to ignore it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf I had indeed already commented in that discussion, saying much the same as I have here. Thank you for providing the link; the discussion has not had much participation so far (7 editors, one of whom joined in only to deal with a behavioural issue and expressed no opinion on the actual telephone codes). Only two editors in that discussion are currently in favour of automatic notability for all codes. One editor has questioned the origins of the North American consensus (it would certainly be helpful to have a link to that). I think it's not so much that editors are ignoring a previous discussion, more that they're unaware of it, and are therefore judging by general notability. The fact that these articles keep turning up at AfD isn't great evidence of community support. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Do you have links to discussions/policy that show this consensus? If so, I think it's worth having a discussion about this. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JML1148 I don't know of any policy discussions, there was an attempt at one in 2005/6 (Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Area codes) but nothing came of it. Every area code in the NANP has an article and only a handful of AfDs that I've found, the most recent appears to be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area code 707 from 2015 which was intended as a testcase but withdrawn after 3 keep !votes and two generally favourable comments. In 2007 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area code 856 closed with a consensus that "all North American area codes are notable". Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Thank you for the finds. There appears to be a vague understanding that area codes for North American codes are notable per the AfD's you linked, but there has been some deletions of UK area codes. I think there needs to be a discussion/RfC to decide if area codes are inherently notable. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Phone numbers are not inherently notable, and unless this one in particular has non-technical coverage, it doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Individual phone numbers are not inherently notable, but the consensus (linked above) is that all North American area codes are notable. What makes UK area codes different to North American ones? Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My position remains unchanged. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per Elemimele. It's pretty WP:MILL coverage, and there isn't anything special about the dialling code. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to strike my !vote until a longer discussion occurs about whether area codes are inherently notable. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure why is there even a debate around it. Classic WP:MILL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The debate is because consensus is that North American area code articles are not WP:MILL and because the articles need to be discussed as a set first. This has been explained multiple times in this discussion previously. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if not MILL, then almost certainly NOTDIR. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the consensus is that all North American area codes are notable, it's evident that consensus is also that they are not anything in WP:NOT and listing them individually will not change that. You are free to disagree with that consensus, but if you want other editors to attach any relevance to your position you will have to express it with arguments that are more than just assertions that the consensus is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument being that this is both MILL and NOTDIR. Parroting that someone somewhere else said something isn't helpful. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can assert that this are both MILL and NOTDIR if you like, but you have yet to explain why you think they are when the established consensus is that articles of an identical type are not. Saying what the established consensus is is not "parroting that someone somewhere else said something". Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the onus is on someone to demonstrate notability, not to demonstrate lack of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a convincing or acceptable argument in AFD discussions. I would argue that, even if there had been a decision that US dialing codes were inherently notable, it would not follow through that dialing codes in other countries were automatically notable. We're not an information service for British Telecom. Sionk (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been such a decision - see links provided above. The entire point of my argument is (and has been throughout) that we need to hold a discussion to determine whether that consensus holds for UK numbers or not as a set before discussing individual codes. Nowhere have I asserted that this individual code is or is not notable, just that it should not be deleted before we determine what the consensus is regarding UK dialling codes as a set. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you continue to insist that numbers such as these are automatically notable, and have yet to explain how or why. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another failure to read what I've actually written rather than what you want me to have written. As I have repeatedly explained, consensus is that all NAMP area code articles are notable and that before discussing individual UK dialling codes we need to determine whether this consensus also applies to UK dialling codes (as nobody has even attempted to explain why they are/would be/should be different) and, if it doesn't, what the consensus regarding these types of articles as a set actually is. My only argument is that articles about individual codes should not be deleted before we discus them as a set. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read exactly what you've repeatedly said, without any evidence, that NAMP area codeas are automatically notable. You then demanded TheInsatiableOne explain why 01633 was run-of-the-mill, but that isn't the purpose of AfD. The onus is on someone to demonstrate suitability for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus this, consensus that. It's suitability as a wikipedia article still has not been established. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the links in the penultimate comment before the latest relist for links to the evidence that NAMP have been deemed automatically notable. Actually, as you seem to have failed to find them despite allegedly reading everything I've written and multiple pointers to them, here they are again:
In 2007 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area code 856 closed with a consensus that "all North American area codes are notable".

In 2015 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area code 707 was withdrawn with nobody other the nominator suggesting the articles are not notable, effectively reaffirming that consensus.

There have been no discussions since then that I have been able to find, despite extensive searching.

Every consensus on Wikipedia lasts until a subsequent discussion reaches a different consensus. So, as there have been no subsequent discussions, the current consensus is that all NAMP area codes are notable.

If all NAMP codes are individually notable according to consensus, but not all UK area codes are, then there must be something different about the UK ones, but not a single person has even attempted to explain what that is or might be, for the most part they've just completely ignored the discrepancy. My argument is that it's inappropriate to discuss the notability of a single item of a set when there are unanswered questions about the set as a whole, because if the consensus is that all individual area codes are notable (or that none of them are) then discussions of individual articles are pointless. If the consensus is that some are notable and some are not, then we can evaluate the articles against the agreed standard so as to achieve a consistent result. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy which states consensus found in one or a few AfD debates necessarily applies to all future debates to similar articles? If not, this is a flawed argument. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every consensus applies until a future discussion about that topic comes to a different consensus, but a smaller discussion cannot overrule a larger one. So if you want to challenge the consensus then you need to be supporting a discussion of appropriate scope to do that - which is exactly what I am trying to get. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So no, there isn't. I therefore invoke Hitchens's razor. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion cannot overturn the larger existing consensus, no matter how much you want it to. I'll try and explain this a different way - you say the purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not this article is notable but we cannot answer that question (positively or negatively) until we have an answer about the set of articles to which this belongs. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is little discussion to be had, as your sole point has been repeated and reworded a dozen times. It is unconvincing, and not rooted in policy. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean policy other than WP:CONSENSUS. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus somewhere ≠ consensus everywhere. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Broad, longstanding consensus supercedes a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming such a consensus shouldn't be used to paint over future discussions. For the here and now, the onus is on the keep crowd to prove notability and I'm not seeing it. You can crow about consensus 'til the cows come home, but be aware that it is not in the least bit convincing. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming such a consensus shouldn't be used to paint over future discussions. which is exactly why I'm attempting to have a discussion that can determine what the current consensus is. You don't think this article (and ones like it) should be kept, so why are you so dead against a discussion that can determine the fate of them reliably without issues of a small localconsensus (potentially) contradicting the long standing wider consensus? Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am firm that consensus in 1 discussion ≠ consensus in a different one. But instead of getting bogged down in what does or doesn't constitute consensus, let's make this easy on ourselves.

Why is this article (and others like it) notable? TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained repeatedly and at length why we cannot answer that question until we have a consensus on the wider issue. I'm not saying these are notable, I'm not saying these are not notable. I'm saying that we cannot know whether they are notable or not until we establish what does and does not make an area code notable. We cannot establish that in a discussion about a single area code. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then until such a time that you are prepared to give a straight answer, I will not engage further. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I'm not prepared to give a straight answer, it's that a straight answer is impossible at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 14 June 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. Daniel (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lewicki[edit]

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

Very blatant failure of WP:GNG, a web search reveals one (1) "passable" secondary source. I'd love to pretend this guy meets WP:NHOCKEY based on winning rookie of the year in the CHL, but I don't have the heart for that. IceBergYYC (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. IceBergYYC (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DreamRimmer (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good grief; we're talking an undistinguished college player who played just two professional seasons, most in the low minors. Complete failure of the GNG and of NHOCKEY. (Unsurprising that this is another of Dolovis' old page creations.) Ravenswing 17:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I found this [62][63][64] and also awarded withTerry Flanagan Memorial Award see[65]and also winner of Hobey Baker Award see[66]Epcc12345 (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He did not win the Hobey Baker, if you read the source you linked in [5] you would see it is talking about him being presented with the Terry Flanagan. Reference [4] is directly from his school, and does not build notability. Number [3] is from oursportscentral, which is a website that amalgamates publications directly from sports teams, in that sources case, being a news release from his ECHL team the Reading Royals, (again not building notability). Source [2] is the one I found and mentioned in my original AfD statement, its passable. Clicking on the authors name for [1] shows that the author is a paid employee of the college lewicki played for, again likely not applicable for building notability. And so we are back at 1 usable source. IceBergYYC (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With that, neither winning this Flanagan award nor being a Baker finalist satisfies any notability criteria. Ravenswing 17:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the source explanation above, winning non-notable awards. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some Newspapers.com coverage: [67] [68] and [69] (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. College players or career minor leaguers are never notable unless they at some point played in a top-tier professional league or had significant media coverage or importance outside of the sport itself. —Notorious4life (talk) 04:10, 11 June 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. Trainsandotherthings, please execute rename as soon as possible. Thanks! Daniel (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Yard[edit]

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

Only found trivial mentions of the subject. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United States of America, and California. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Possible sources include Trains magazine and Don Hofsummer's history of the Southern Pacific Railroad. I'll check. Niles Subdivision would be the natural merge target but it's a red link. Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Three passing references in Trains. They do substantiate the source of the name. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect this is not the most common name of the yard (not the first time this has happened). This is quite a significant facility and UP has a major intermodal operation here, as it's adjacent to the Port of Oakland. I'm still trying to figure out the name but I would be very surprised if this doesn't meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename It's exactly as I suspected - names used appear to include Oakland Yard(s), West Oakland Yard(s), or Oakland Pier Yard(s). I've also seen Oakland Terminal. I ran into similar issues while bringing Cedar Hill Yard to FA status - names used include Cedar Hill Yards, Cedar Hill Yard, Cedar Hill Terminal, and Montowese Yard. For the facility in question, I was able to find ample significant coverage:
- 3 pages on new facilities for car lighting at the yards
- [70] (granted this is primary)
- [71] "Above all, the Southern Pacific dominated West Oakland's industrial, as well as social, geography with its massive switching and maintenance yards, roundhouses, car assembly and repair shops, creosoting plant, and shipyards (the Southern Pacific built ferries for San Francisco Bay)."
- Article on the creosoting plant at the yards
- [72] "In the Oakland yards of the Southern Pacific is handled more freight cars than at any other point on the Pacific Coast"
- [73] Signal shop located at West Oakland Yard

From this sampling I think it's pretty clear we are dealing with a major rail yard clearly surpassing GNG, it's just at the wrong title. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources given. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: the sources given establish notability per WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:32, 11 June 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. Closing this early per WP:SNOW--the "yes" votes are well sourced and well argued, and their arguments stand, though the nominator has pulled out all the stops--including violations of AGF, bludgeoning, and providing incorrect assessment of sources. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palace of the End[edit]

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

Nominating per WP:NPLOT and more broadly WP:INDISCRIMINATE, failing WP:GNG, and no indication of encyclopedic importance and notability. Most of the limited coverage was in 2008-2010 when the play was running in some theaters and the coverage is mostly in the form of short reviews of individual performances. The best RS give little more than or as much as a plot summary of the play typically in the form of a short review of a performance of the play. Other sources include trivial mentions, product pages for the published play, promos. This is in spite of the play was published and performed during the heyday of the Iraq War it's based upon and what attention it got was bolstered by that globally significant event. It's on the opposite end of the notability spectrum from other theater-related articles like Romeo and Juliet, which can still be improved.

Fails WP:GNG too especially SIGCOV. The best sourcing, redundant short plot summaries with a couple details about an individual performance, are minimalistic in depth. I'm open to that a few more non-notable minutiae could be added but the one important element from secondary RS is a short plot summary.

Important because this is the one of the most common misinterpretations in AfD, if an argument is to be made for it, WP:GNG is not a guarantee for notability. GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee, for notability. It's a low minimum threshold to be able to presume and consider the subject's "notability" and inclusion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This play, by a notable playwright, has had quite a few productions at notable theatres and numerous, uniformly strong reviews. Its published version has had a 2nd edition. It won the 2007-08 Susan Smith Blackburn Prize. The article is just a stub and needs to be fleshed out, but there appear to be lots of reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This "Keep" comment makes vague, spurious, and incorrect statements that are addressed below.

The notable playwright comment is unsubstantiated and unrelated. The playwright's article is all unsourced OR. There isn't an evidenced case for notability on the playwright and the (unsubstantiated claim of) notability of the playwright does not transfer to the play. Only 3 of the playwright's plays have articles. Of the other two, one is mostly unsourced OR and the other is a barely-sourced stub. Regardless, this doesn't confer notability on this article.

I can see a performance at Arcola in London as far as "notable theatres" go, which I sourced on the article, and still, that very short review says nothing more than a short plot summary.

What does a second edition have to do with notability? Not worth mentioning.

The "appear to be lots of reliable sources" (assuming unsubstantiated claim of reliability) is indeed an appearance. I addressed it in the nomination, and does not mean significant coverage either. If "lots of reliable" reviews are redundant and nearly all give the same minimal coverage, almost nothing more than a plot summary, this does not meet GNG.

The award is not evidenced to be notable (that is, not anything like a Tony or similar) nor on its own makes the play notable. Among other evidence, most of the other plays on the mostly unsourced award page are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and those that do have a strong case for deletion for similar problems. The award's article is nothing more than a long list of winners and finalists. Compare to Tony Awards which makes it clear why it's notable.

"The article is just a stub and needs to be fleshed out"

The article is a stub because there's little to flesh it out with as you demonstrated[74]. I want to highlight this point: You tried to flesh it and I thank you for trying to improve the article but all that was added was trivial minutiae in 2 sentences: a list of everywhere the play has been performed and the non-notable award. Adding everywhere a play has been performed is superfluous information and likely should be excluded. Your attempt proves the point made in the nomination.

Disclaimer: The above "keep" commenter is an active member of WikiProject Musical Theatre, a sister of WikiProject Theatre. Both WikiProjects are dedicated to creating, improving, and like in this case, keeping theatre-related articles. They have an interest in keeping any theatre-related article, including non-notable entries.

This still fails GNG and still violates WP:NPLOT. The argument that is not what it purports to be, and attempt to improve the article demonstrated it more. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saucysalsa30, please be WP:CIVIL. I have worked on numerous WP:FA and WP:GA articles on Wikipedia since 2006. Contrary to your accusation above, I have no "interest" in this article, other than to improve Wikipedia. Sometimes plays are notable, and sometimes they are not, in which case, I would argue to delete. The fact that I edit frequently in the area of theatre, and also sometimes contribute to AfDs, gives me experience in judging which plays may be notable and which ones are not. If one wants to suggest contributors here who may have an "interest" one way or the other, I note that you have been cautioned before about your behavior at AfD discussions, especially concerning Iraq-related articles, which this is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with the points made by Ssilvers above - looks a well-referenced article to me. Jack1956 (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate? What is "well-referenced" about a few redundant sources that say nothing more than a very short summary of the plot? This is extremely low-depth and non-notable. This is exactly what Wikipedia is not. See WP:NPLOT. Ssilver's case was spurious and picked apart. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not based on the current state of the article, but notability as determined by the information available in the sources, and searches show a number of unused sources that show this easily passes GNG. These include:
- "Investigating Afghanada: Situating the CBC Radio Drama in the Context and Politics of Canada and the War on Terror". Theatre Research in Canada. 37 (1): 92. March 22, 2016. ISSN 1196-1198.
- Taylor, Paul (November 5, 2010). "An affecting but somewhat dodgy dossier". Independent Extra. p. 16.
- Mcveigh, J. T. (April 20, 2017). "Dark drama aims to spark discussion". Collingwood Enterprise-Bulletin. p. A8.
- "Breaking Ground at 4th Line with bullying tale". The Peterborough Examiner. February 25, 2017. p. C1.
- Donnelly, Pat (March 20, 2013). "Play offers a searing look at war-torn Iraq ; Palace of the end, based on real people, is fiercely written and disturbing". The Montreal Gazette. p. B5.

There is also discussion of the work in the following books

Porter, Nancy Taylor (2017). Violent Women in Contemporary Theatres: Staging Resistance. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-57006-8.
Claycomb, Ryan (2012). Lives in Play: Autobiography and Biography on the Feminist Stage. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11840-3.
Fallwell, Lynne; Williams, Keira V. (2016). Gender and the Representation of Evil. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-315-53155-7.
Randall, Martin (2011). 9/11 and the Literature of Terror. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-4697-5.

I would say that not only is there enough to pass GNG, there is probably enough to get a decent GA out of it - possibly more if I turn to the whole range of sources dealing with literature and the theatre that I can access. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat Please re-read the nomination. Thorough WP:BEFORE was done. I'm well aware it's not based on the current state of the article and I saw almost every source you listed in my research. I checked each source you listed again and they have about as much depth, a couple less, a couple a little more, as existing sources on the article, that is, still low depth and no evidence of notability. Like the Montreal Gazette article and the other articles, which is just another plot summary. Some of these are not WP:RS to begin with, like whatever "Independent Extra" is.

Worse, a couple of your sources don't even talk about this play at all. Example: From Randall's 9/11 and the Literature of Terror, the book talks about a New Yorker article by Martin Amis called "In the Palace of the End" that has no relation to the play. I mentioned in the nom there are other works that have similar titles but have nothing to do with this play. Why make a disingenuous case?

No, it doesn't pass GNG, and misrepresenting sources, like including sources that aren't about this play anywhere, doesn't inspire much confidence. The "decent GA" statement is absurd but the humor is appreciated. A lack of depth doesn't meet GNG, and furthermore don't demonstrate notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. You do not need to WP:BLUDGEON every comment here.

2. Don't ever accuse me of misrepresenting sources or of being disingenuous: try that again and you'll have a blast of base and industrial Anglo-Saxon in response to such uncivil slurs. The Randall book also refers to part of Thompson's work on page 148, albeit briefly. That makes a lie of your claim that "a couple of your sources don't even talk about this play at all". I stand by the list of sources above, and this was after only a brief look, without looking at more specialist sources.

3. You speak from a position of ignorance when dismissing the sources ("like whatever "Independent Extra" is"): it's a supplement to a UK broadsheet, a long-standing reliable source.

I stand by my !Keep vote, and my opinion that this passes GNG. Your "opinion" on the sources is noted and refuted, as is the pointy nonsense in your last couple of sentences. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: it is also inappropriate to state that WikiProjects "have an interest in keeping any theatre-related article, including non-notable entries": that is untrue, and you should strike the italicised part of the comment accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As an FYI, concerns about Saucysalsa30 bludgeoning discussions have been raised before. I have now warned Saucysalsa30 on their talk page not to continue this behavior. --SouthernNights (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: This is a clear mispresentation. SouthernNights is someone who has hounded me across multiple pages when I reported an acquaintance of theirs to ANI for bludgeoning, edit warring including breaking 3RR, and repeated personal attacks. Instead of doing what any fair admin would do and warn or reprimand the editor engaging for multiple days in clearly disruptive behavior, SouthernNights attempted to turn the ANI on me. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can always open a thread at ANI based on your accusations and see how that turns out for you? If you don’t want to do that, then it’s probably best not to cast aspersions on other editors. Once again I advise you to backpedal and treat people with some degree of politeness. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since in response to my warning Saucysalsa30 made false allegations against my work as both an editor and an admin, I have started an ANI discussion on this matter.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SchroCat --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:01, 11 June 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 04:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Day Alive[edit]

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

Article about a rock band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that the song charted on a WP:BADCHART that does not pass NMUSIC's charting criterion (which is looking for IFPI-certified national charts on the order of Billboard, not "Secondary Market Rock") -- and otherwise, the article is referenced entirely to their own self-published website and content in unreliable music blogs that are not WP:GNG-worthy sources.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Granted there are big names listed but it fails all requirements of what an article should contain to be here. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no charted singles on a chart that we recognize, rest is un-RS. Appears an attempt at PROMO. They've only been around since 2020? Likely TOOSOON. I don't find any sourcing in major news outlets about this band. Oaktree b (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Secondary Market Chart appears to be somewhat notable, but it's simply for songs getting some sort of airplay, outside of the mainstream media. For bands almost ready to hit the big time I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 5 June 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. Daniel (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent M. Holt[edit]

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

Biography of a writer, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers. The principal notability claim here is that his book exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass for it, but the sourcing isn't getting him over GNG: it consists of one short newspaper blurb from 1885 that verifies the existence of the book without even naming the author at all, and one newspaper article from 2008 that isn't substantively about Vincent Holt or the book, but just glancingly namechecks their existence in the process of being fundamentally about the concept of the same dietary practice that the book was about. So these sources are acceptable but not enough, and he would have to have more than this to actually pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are many book references available. The book is an undergound classic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A commenter on an internet forum suggests the author's full name was Vincent Morshead Holt Beever, a solicitor who died in 1916. "His father was a Welsh clergyman, and his mother was from Brazil," it is added. This for what it is worth. Carrite (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very weak sourcing used, not much found otherwise. The individual existed, but we don't have enough in RS to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The nom sums up the existing sources on the article and other available sourcing perfectly. All the article says about the subject is he wrote a manifesto in 1885. I don't see how any serious statement can be made to keep this. There is nothing notable or important about this in the Wikipedia sense. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 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.