Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 28	November 30 >

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lokenath Brahmachari[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. BangJan1999 23:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, India, and West Bengal. BangJan1999 23:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources that can be verified. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep venerated saint in Bengal. [1] Bangla Hindustan Times, [2] Bangla Aajtak, [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. is quite developed.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content added to the article is unreliable [10]. I have already discussed this at length at WP:FTN. Shri Shital Chandra Pal is not an academic publisher. These are 20-30 page self-published booklets with cartoon cover-arts [11]. The booklet has not been translated into English. No academic or historian would cite this source. It is not useful for Wikipedia. It's claims cannot be verified. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draft: The above sources show that an article might be possible, but as the article stands it is not ready for mainspace. The entire article is the subject's name + "was a Bengali yogi." - four words. // Timothy :: talk 12:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redtigerxyz's "sources" include a website called Learnreligions.com, a self-published book by some Sanjiv Shukla, a trivial mention in a Brill Handbook (the lone source in our article), a Bengali man mentioning the name in response to an anthropologist, a trivial mention in a journalist's profile of the state elections, etc. The Hindustan Times article is classed under the "astrology" section; ofcourse, a reliable source - how can it not be? Perhaps they ought to read WP:SIGCOV; this discussion is not about proving that Loknath brahmachari is not a hoax. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 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 due to significant changes during the discussion, which means (following two relists) I can't see any reasonable prospect of finding consensus in this debate. Crunchydillpickle and Timothy, if you believe this still doesn't meet GNG/N after this rewrite, I'd encourage you to re-nominate and the new article can be discussed. (This close of no consensus is explicitly without prejudice to a renomination immediately if so desired.) Daniel (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Woodward Jr.[edit]

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

Was cleaning up some promotional, unsourced edits from an IP editor who said the subject was their boss. Couldn't find sources to back up most of the article's statements. Most of the sources are blogs and YouTube interviews ([12] [13]) or press releases about the subject's work. [14][15]). The only sources that seem remotely useable are this one-paragraph PR-esque interview ([16]), a mention of his 2008 birthday party in Star-News ([17]), and an interview with the pop culture blog CBR ([18]) about a movie he directed, Til Death Do Us Part (2023 film). I think he fails WP:N. I'm fairly new to AfD, so apologies if I've missed anything. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is PR but it says he's won an Emmy [19], but I find no sourcing to support this. This could be him, but I don't know [20], super trivial coverage... This in Collider is an interview [21] but that's about all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the source #9 PressHerald is indeed about a different person, a then child actor, born in 2006, not the TWJr discussed here, who had directed more than 12 films by the time the first was 11...;D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in Jstor, Gnews, Gscholar or the NYT. all coverage of this person is interviews or trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Internet, California, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR, which states: ""People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)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);" TWJr is the director of multiple notable films, all having received substantial coverage, with various films reviewed in Variety, (multiple times) The Hollywood Reporter, DreadCentral, Film Threat, Los Angeles Times (multiple times), etc. On top of this, these reviews (example) are significant coverage on him (not that this is needed to meet the criterion). ~~Will add sources to the page now.~~ Added a few of the numerous existing sources to the page. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. I think nom and Oaktree's source eval is correct, sources are mentions, listings, and promo-style articles/interviews, nothing that meets BLPs requirement for strong sourcing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if WP:THREE sources with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 12:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Film .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Since the nomination, I have expanded the article, using, if I am not mistaken, none of the sources that are mentioned by other users in the course of this discussion. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 1 December 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Jade Bastién[edit]

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

As mentioned on Wikipedia talk page, there are scores of film critics who are at least as well known as this one who do not have Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia pages for film critics should only exist when it comes to ones like Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert etc.

Also, as Staceyt04 said, "none of the language present connotes any kind of notability. Furthermore, the tone with which this article is written suggests self-promotion. There are references to her current output at Vulture and a Twitter page that, as of this writing, does not exist. 6 of the 23 sources provided are just her writing. The act of writing, as well as the fact of being employed as a staff writer, is not itself notable."— Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenWilliam (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She meets WP:BIO, Just that some more work needs to be done! Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She meets notability as a creative professional given that she has been nominated several times for a significant award (ASME Awards), she is widely cited across significant RS, and she provides commentary in multiple RS. And despite your opinion, notability for critics isn't determined based on your personal determination. Citrivescence (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also want to add that the nominator made an edit to this page about a highly controversial topic that was rolled back, which indicates this is not a good faith nomination. Citrivescence (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Bastién is significant enough to have her own Wikipedia page (and I'm not convinced that she is), then her Wikipedia page should include at least *some* of the opinions she has shared with her readers. WarrenWilliam (talk) 17:54, 5 December 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. ✗plicit 03:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Riedell Skates[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The link to footnote 1 does not work, but that two-page, 2007 article has been archived at the Wayback Machine.[22] The other source is a bare mention, so notability likely will rest on the first source. Kablammo (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recovered some evidence of two earlier references, so some notability is shown. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per the current refs. Significant coverage. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per added sources. /Julle (talk) 01:23, 6 December 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 13:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian State–Charlotte rivalry[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from independent, secondary sources. The only secondary source (#2) currently in the article says that it isn't a rivalry yet, and I don't see any other non-primary sources calling it one. Let'srun (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Baseball, Basketball, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going through the sources in which they appear: WP:UGC; "A rivalry? Not yet." (i.e. this is a WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL failure); no mention of "rivalry" and looks to be more UGC; self-published by one of the schools, mentions no rivalry, and is just game schedules; ditto; ditto. There is no source of any kind for a rivalry, much less in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Unlike several of the other rivalry AfDs presently running, this one doesn't even have material to merge into the school articles' athletics sections, since the whole idea of such a rivalry existing is pure WP:OR. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The teams have played a total of three games, starting in 2018, and App State won all three games by a combined total of 136 to 70. No trophy. No long tradition. Not a rivalry. Not notable. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of these sources not included in the article describe it as a rivalry. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] Grahaml35 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/charlotte-49ers/article245693775.html
^ https://charlottesports.org/appalachian-state-and-charlotte-to-play-in-2025-dukes-mayo-classic/
^ https://www.ninertimes.com/sports/charlotte-mens-basketball-overcomes-23-point-deficit-to-down-in-state-rival-appalachian-state/article_1b7a46a2-740a-11ed-bdfd-b792d6fecd4d.html
^ https://www.ninertimes.com/sports/charlotte-mens-basketball-hosts-in-state-rival-appalachian-state/article_675b003a-7251-11ed-a3e1-17ca955cabd8.html
^ https://www.nbcsports.com/college-football/news/budding-rivalry-in-north-carolina-charlotte-app-state-schedule-two-games

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My interpretation of the sources above are that they are WP:LOCAL to Charlotte. The NBC Sports ref is also a WP:CRYSTALBALL source. So, nothing provided yet has any clear independence or WP:SIGCOV of a current rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 05:48, 4 December 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. Daniel (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zagreus (audio drama)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. I do not believe previous AFD discussion has identified adequate notability. Torpedoi (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Torpedoi (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. The article needs some work; specifically, the plot summary needs to be cut to well under half of what it is, but the sources added during the previous AfD establish GNG.
1. Starburst Magazine is a long running magazine.
2. Sci-fi Online is a professional webzine reliable for such cases [23].
3. I don't have access to the AHistory book, but apparently it is meant to cover such "canon" productions, so I would AGF on it.

Another source, Doctor Who Magazine is an "official" magazine so not sure on independence but may help as well. —siro χ o 04:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it does meet WP:GNG. I even cited it in my own book for its significance. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:41, 6 December 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Wall (audio drama)[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage and failing to meet general notability guidelines. Previous AFD discussion did not sufficiently determine notability. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online. Existing references do not determine notability. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Torpedoi (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Torpedoi (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Ping me if WP:THREE WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 13:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Curse of Davros.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:05, 6 December 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 Carter's Ink Company#Development and final years. ✗plicit 03:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Carter[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what was wrong with the long-to-common name redirect to John Carter (South Carolina politician) that you reverted? Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For 17 years, this was a stub about a 19th century Boston inkmaker. On October 7, another editor redirected this article to an unrelated 19th century South Carolina politician. Last week, the nominator, Joeykai, reverted the redirect and nominated this article for deletion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carter's Ink Company#Development and final years. There's nothing about John W. Carter in this stub that's not already in the Carter's Ink Company article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carter's Ink Company#Development and final years. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 30 November 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 Steve Wright in the Afternoon. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Mendoza[edit]

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

This is pretty much an unsourced BLP. The sources/external links used are not independent of the subject (a book he published or a feature he created). I cannot find any sources that indicate the subject is notable. This is the only thing that came close, but it is just a passing mention, and the article is really about a feature the subject contributed to. - 2pou (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this radio person, some connections to an Addams Family production, but that's not this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Internet, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBASIC and per nom, no significant coverage found. Tails Wx 02:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG --Kuntra (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Steve Wright in the Afternoon - it's a plausible search term for people looking for information on Mendoza and other participants in that show but I agree he's not notable enough for a standalone article. Waggers TALK 14:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steve Wright in the Afternoon. This BLP continues to have insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability, and I am unable to find more. The show he presented on is the most appropriate redirect target, and furthermore I have added information on Mendoza to the Steve Wright in the Afternoon#Format section, such that merge is no longer necessary.ResonantDis_tortion 23:00, 3 December 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!} 23:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hayrullah Evrenöz[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Not ready for mainspace, but moved here twice by the creating editor. This is why we are here now. Sending to Draft again seems foolish 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Turkey. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Draftify) - Does not satisfy general notability as written. The 14 references are all to sinematurk.com. It isn't necessary to be able to read Turkish to see that this is a film database on actors and films. I don't know whether the database entries are fact-checked, and so whether the source is reliable, but they are not independent or secondary. None of the links from the filmography to articles include a mention of him in the cast, so acting notability is not satisfied. If draftified, Extended-Confirmed protect so that it will not be promoted back to article space without a review. If deleted, originator can create a more complete draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Endrabcwizart - "Not ready for mainspace" or "Not ready for article space" is not a sufficient reason to draftify an article. When draftifying, state why the article is not ready for article space. In this case, you had notability and verifiability reasons for draftifying. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

Kuntra (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not a well-known person in Turkey. He doesn't even have any notable achievements. Delbatros^Talk 06:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Armenia women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nare Avetian[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Armenia, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers per above. // Timothy :: talk 18:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. (This is a soft-redirect, akin to a soft-deletion.) Daniel (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaly Silva[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. I found passing mentions of the subject during her high school (1), college (2), and international (3) careers, but nothing significant. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Nicaragua, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:15, 1 December 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. Daniel (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Over the Top[edit]

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

Draftify. Previously PRODed and refunded, but a WP:N(E) with no claims to notability, no inline citations, and is little more than an article-ification of a box score. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 21:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - microbiologyMarcus - BeanieFan11 just reopened this a few days ago. I think it can wait a few days. There's plenty of sources - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say draftify is a possibility here? I've edited my nom to clarify. I just couldn't draftify myself without consensus because of the policy at WP:DRAFTIFY and the article history. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the draftify option, since while this subject appears to probably be notable it is not evident in the article per the current sources. Willing to help improve the article if it is moved there. Let'srun (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to vote but sources don't have to be present in the article for it to be notable. Thanks. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I had requested undeletion is that there appears to be a large amount of coverage of this, e.g. ESPN feature, Yahoo, 1819 News, AL.com (again), Bleacher Report, 247Sports, Touchdown Alabama, then plenty of book mentions and Newspapers.com mentions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The issue here really isn't notability but editorial judgment as to when we should split content from an athlete's biography. Our Bo Jackson article includes a discussion of "Over the Top". It should be IMO a rare case where we exercise our editorial judgment to split a legendary play from the player's biography. E.g, Babe Ruth's called shot, Franco Harris' Immaculate Reception, Dwight Clark's The Catch, or Maradonna's The hand of God goal. I have doubts as to whether Bo Over the Top rises to that level. Draftification will allow interested editors to work on the topic and demonstrate that such treatment is truly warranted. Cbl62 (talk) 04:16, 1 December 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 Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya. (This is a soft-redirect, akin to a soft-deletion.) Daniel (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kinnaur[edit]

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

No 3P sources found for this particular school.Sohom (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, India, and Himachal Pradesh. Sohom (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no issues with a redirect Sohom (talk) 12:15, 2 December 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!} 23:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Ajvazi[edit]

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

disputed draftify, no secondary sources, not able to make a case for notability. entirely promotional microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Photography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete preferably speedily - non-notable vanity spam, doesn't even warrant a discussion for the obvious nature of the article (promo and a complete and utter lack of notability.) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources at all. No significant coverage. Elspea756 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no good sources, exhibitions of his website are clearly photoshopped, how exhibition in Austria has the same interior as one in London? Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha I didn’t even notice that! GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet any notability guideline. Lack of secondary reliable sources and notable exhibitions.Antimargi (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable and the article is way out of compliance with Wikipedia formatting.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:31, 6 December 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 withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 20:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V (2021 film)[edit]

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

The entire article survives on a single Maalai Malar review. I don't think that Malini Mannath's reviews outside The New Indian Express, Chennai Online and The Indian Express are notable (website is blog like). There are no sources about her unlike Komal Nahta. Other Tamil films that have a single Maalai Malar review have plenty of outside notable production sources: Engada Iruthinga Ivvalavu Naala, Vilayattu Aarambam, 50/50 (2019 film). DareshMohan (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All reviews are usable. This one seems to have been established by Diamond Babu. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kailash29792's comment establishes there is at least one more reliable review, which, with the one DareshMohan mentions, makes at least 2. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources exist. Neutral Fan (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutral Fan: Can you add another review? I only see Maalai Malar as being notable. DareshMohan (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the sources are as they appear. I cannot read in Tamil. I don't want a notable film to lose out because of the natural bias that almost everyone who works on the English Wikipedia speaks English. Will defer to any Tamil reader who finds the sources wanting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24: Being a Tamil user, I nominated it for deletion. This a low-key film. There is one notable review from Maalai Malar. Malini Mannath, used to write for The New Indian Express but this review was from her blog page. Could not find any sources about Malini Mannath, herself, which is why she does not have her own page. The other review Film News 24x7 is probably fine because of Diamond Babu. Hope this helps. Just cause you don't know the language doesn't mean it is inherently notable (you can also use Google Translate ). DareshMohan (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination. DareshMohan (talk) 20:07, 3 December 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. As was stated at a previous discussion, it may be better to have a broader discussion regarding how to handle these articles in general, as it seems unlikely that an AfD on individual articles is likely to lead to a clear outcome regarding that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000[edit]

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

So, two of these thousand have a name, neither of the two is a notable "minor planet" (both are space rocks of 1km or less in diameter), neither of the two has a name which has gotten any attention (as sometimes happens when a celebrity gets a rock named after them). Note that, while there are 8 references, none of them are about these two. Basically, space trivia. Fram (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we seem to have an extensive database of meanings of minor planet names, starting at Meanings_of_minor-planet_names, of which this is a member. All of the sub-pages that I checked have near-identical sourcing (a dictionary of minor planet names, and the primary literature of minor-planet-namers). I assume someone decided that Wikipedia is the right place to host all this, and that being the case, it doesn't make sense to leave holes in the database. Further, although many of the other articles have more minor planets with names, none seem to have secondary sourcing indicating that they're more notable than the two examples on the page that Fram has picked up. So basically this is the tip of a truly enormous iceberg. My feeling is that you either keep the lot, or you make a decision now that will have consequences for the entire "database", possibly leading to the deletion of a large number of these pages, or possibly the keeping of random snippets of trivia about some minor rocks because they happen to have a number within a range that covers one of the rare examples that has secondary referencing. This needs a discussion on the entire thing, not on one example. Elemimele (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion about the whole lot woud be a WP:TRAINWRECK where people would argue against the deletion of e.g. Meanings of minor-planet names: 1–1000 resulting in keeping them all because some may be acceptable. If we can agree that the lower end of the range (i.e. at the moment, this page at AfD) is not suitable for enwiki, then a discussion may be useful to decide where the cutoff should be (numerical or on other considerations): but if consensus would be that even this very page is suitable for enwiki, then it wouldn't make sense to have further discussions. Fram (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would probably be a train-wreck, but it remains true that all these articles, of which there are hundreds, have exactly the same problem. This one isn't even the worst (see Meanings of minor planet names: 535001–536000 which I picked at random). (1) There are two ways to handle notability on things like this; either proper secondary sourcing on the individual items, or on secondary sourcing of the overall concept. In both cases we require multiple independent sources. Even the 1-1000 list, which is the least controversial of the lot, fails both tests. We've got no secondary sources for any of the individuals, and one dictionary for the idea that names of minor planets are a listable thing in their own right. In fact, we appear to be mirroring a public-domain dictionary, and I'd argue that providing mirrors of single documents is not the role of an encyclopaedia. (2) Also, by analogy with biological species names, it is the species that is notable, not the name, and therefore we accept articles on any species even if it has no secondary literature, but we do not accept articles on names. In minor planets we seem to have reversed the situation and accepted that we'll talk about the name even when the object isn't deemed notable. That's a perverse thing to have happened. (3) But the basic problem is this: you're never going to persuade the astronomy faction to delete this entire block of articles, so attempting to nibble away at it mini-list by mini-list would be, in my view, an underhand deed. The correct approach would be to merge the etymological information for each notable object into its own article. Anyone who's interested in 68 Leto will find the object there, with its etymology, and equally, anyone who's interested in the mother of Apollo and Artemis will find her at Leto; I fail to see what the listing of names achieves, except being a database of names. Elemimele (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: my quick review of the lower-numbered minor planet articles indicates that they do, indeed, meet the criteria for notability because almost every planet listed has its own article. This is covered a bit in WP:NOTESAL but this is essentially a list of planets that are considered notable, making the list notable. Also consider the statement, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." So, the planets as a group are considered notable, so the list does not need additional sources. Having said that, as per Crystal Ball, I hate articles that anticipate content and, this clearly is one. Does anyone know how long it will be before there is more content to add? Does it exist already? Maybe this should be move to draft space until it is more complete? Rublamb (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is explicitly not for the lower-numbered ones, which are mainly notable minor planets (and well-known by name, like Ceres or Vesta). These? The only reliable source is the group which hands out the names (i.e. a primary source for the names), there are no other sources about the meaning of the names of these higher-numbered rocks, many of them probably will never have a name anyway. You say "this is essentially a list of planets that are considered notable", but no, that would be List of minor planets: 623001–624000, not the list of the meanings of their names. Fram (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb: ping went wrong in my previous post. Fram (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These minor planets are notable precisely because they were discovered by an amateur astronomer at the present time, which is a rare event where large and bright asteroids have already been discovered, and the remained small and faint ones are in most cases discovered by automated sky surveys. Information about discoveries of these asteroids and arguments (can be used as references in the article) are available in several articles, for example: Universe Today https://www.universetoday.com/163983/amateur-astronomer-makes-pair-of-asteroid-discoveries/ and Metro Moscow https://www.gazetametro.ru/articles/rossijanin-otkryl-dva-asteroida-i-nazval-ih-v-chest-svoih-pradedov-veteranov-03-11-2023 Филипп Романов (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fly a motley crew of offshore oil rig workers up to it. It's hard to see that there's a case for keeping this...the previous ref mentioned boils down to "guy finds asteroid and names it after his grandfather" or something to that effect. If that source is good for establishing notability of anything, it's for the general topic of amateur asteroid hunting, not for...whatever this is. I'm skeptical enough about the overall database dump of minor planets also up for deletion, but this one is completely ludicrous. I'll also note that the two entries in this list are lifted verbatim from the IAU document (which may or may not be a copy vio). I'm not sure if that's better or worse than the couple previous entries in this series of lists which simply state " Description available (see ref). Please summarize in your own words." for each entry. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above two links also explain why these asteroids were named in honor of these people (there is no explanation in the official citations as to why, just facts). Regarding the fact about discoveries of these asteroids, there is also information in the publication in arXiv: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2212/2212.12543.pdf (page 13). Moreover, regarding "space trivia": (623827) Nikandrilyich is an outer main-belt asteroid, so the orbit of this asteroid is not ordinary: here https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_query.html , in the Limit by Orbit Class, if you choose "Outer Main-belt Asteroid" and "Get results", you will receive: Matching Objects: 40806 (a small percentage of the over 1.3 million known objects). Филипп Романов (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arxiv preprints are not reliable sources; see WP:ARXIV. Regardless, none of this is relevant to the topic at hand, that being the suitability of this particular list of "meanings" of MP names. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Note to closer: It didn't click until just now due to the Cyrillic, but the above commenter's (also creator of the currently nominated list) user name is the same as the discoverer of the two asteroids in question (ditto the author of the offered arxiv source). I can only presume this is the same person, and thus there's a likely WP:COI in writing about this material. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not hide the fact that I am the discoverer of these asteroids and the author of this article (I saw other similar articles and created one, since it was allowed for other cases). I got a message: "The article will be discussed until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion", that's why I'm writing my arguments.
Филипп Романов (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

As part of the well-maintained series of ordered MoMP lists, so they should be discussed & tagged collectively, and not have a random gap created on an otherwise contiguous road.
Per WP:LISTN & Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, and elsewhere, etc., etc.
While many individual entires may not be notable on their own (though some certainly are - we have articles for 469705 ǂKá̦gára, 474640 Alicanto, 486958 Arrokoth, 514107 Kaʻepaokaʻawela, 541132 Leleākūhonua, 594913 ꞌAylóꞌchaxnim, for example) their collective existence is, and being summarized on a list page I think is commensurate with that level of notability.
Named MPs are sparse by their nature, as only 3.9% of numbered MPs have been named, and after the first ~50,000, the probability of an MP being named is relatively flat up to 629,000. While slow, the process is nevertheless steady, with 891 named year-to-date, 650 in 2022, and 792 in 2021. But since it's random, and over a large range, these lists are dormant placeholders (as redirects) until a numbered MP in the range is added, with empty sections as-needed to maintain an internally consistent order throughout all of the MoMP lists, and an externally consistent order with the associated LoMP list counterparts (i.e. changing the bounds of one list and not the other makes maintenance needlessly more complicated), and to make it easier for editors to add meanings in the correct location.
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous AfD close: "As some editors pointed out, there is a need for a broad discussion regarding the structure of the lists of minor planets, and AfD is probably not the best place for that." ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. This AfD doesn't create a "random gap", it is about the last entry in the line. And no, these aren't "well-maintained", this one has copyvio text, the previous ones have placeholder text. 2. Nearly all these sources are older than the two names mentioned here. 3. Basically repeats 2. 4. That's hardly a reason to have these, and the sparsity of these would be a good reason not to follow the complete list system of the main lists, but to have pages per 100,000 or so (for the higher-numbered ones), if these were wanted. Fram (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed copyvio - Филипп Романов has not done much editing, so was likely unaware of our WP:COPYVIO policies.

Named MPs will undoubtedly be created beyond this page, creating a random gap. One can see from a comparison of the LoMP and MoMP pages that the highest named MP is not far behind the highest numbered MP, per reasons described above.

The previous page has an entry identifying that a meaning is available at the ref link to the right, but that none has been added to Wikipedia, which editors do as their time and interest allows.

While tedious and complicating, I'd rather these sparse lists be condensed in some way as an alternative to deletion, but with much more feedback from users/editors of these lists, and not just from people who just don't like it, e.g. We already redirect completely empty lists to the MoMP#Index (a good decision) as a result of the last AfD 4 years ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000. Outright deleting the lists after doing so seems quite a bit like moving the goalposts / scope creep in the dissenting direction. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000, the discussion you apparently completely derailed by sneakily adding non-nominated lower-numbered pages which confused many people and caused others to vote "keep" incorrectly? That AfD? Uh, I don't think it is very convincing to reuse that one. Fram (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I simply placed AfD tags on all pages that the nom originally described, which applied to nearly the entire MoMP#Index. They later narrowed their scope. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (merging any useful information into List of minor planets and the articles on individual ones.

This entire well-maintained series of ordered lists is actually an entirely unnecessary mirror of the minor planets catalogue, copying its text nearly word-perfect (see eg [24])
by analogy to biological species, it is the astronomical object that is notable, not its name. We do not need to duplicate the minor planets in Meanings of minor-planet names, an index into a massive series of lists, as well as having List of minor planets.
And its worse: we also have List_of_named_minor_planets_(alphabetical), List of minor planets named after animals and plants, List of minor planets named after people, List of minor planets named after places, and List of minor planets named after rivers. In fact if we're going to keep all this lot, we really need a List of things by which minor planets have been listed. I'd urge the creators of this lot to think carefully about whether all these lists exist to help our readers, or because someone has a deep-seated urge to classify and create lists. Elemimele (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The concerns raised above do present a fair point in the fact that this list doesn't do much for readers in its current state. It is simply put "space trivia." Seawolf35 ^T--C 00:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or Merge as suggested below. Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large lists are often organized into multiple pages. The large list meets WP:NLIST. If we need a better way of organizing and cleaning up, let's work on that that rather than deleting one piece of the larger list. Deleting this does not improve the encyclopedia. —siro χ o 03:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The large list demonstrably meets NLIST with sources already referenced in the sublists. —siro χ o 07:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That a group has received attention doesn't mean that an exhaustive list across hundreds of pages with every single example, no matter how obscure, is warranted. Fram (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see Wikipedia:Gazetteer as this sort of list is what should be in Wikipedia rather than an article on each list entry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but we already have the list! It's at List of minor planets. Elemimele (talk) Elemimele (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for the same reason we are keeping the other 500+ articles in this series. Today we only have two items populated in this page, but that will likely expand. If you believe all 500+ "Meanings of minor planet names" articles should be deleted, let's start a separate AfD about it. Owen× ☎ 13:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of minor planets or an appropriate sublist thereof. is what unequivocally meets LISTN, and I have no issue splitting that list. I'm genuinely baffled as to why we need a list of meanings over and above a list of planets that, by definition, needs to include those names, and could include those meanings as well. Siroxo I'm confused as to how you think the list of meanings meets NLIST independent of the list of planets. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the equivalent of a multi-page parallel WP:NOPAGE merge is fine as an outcome for the broader lists. But that seems out of scope for this AfD which nominates one specific numerical range sub-list.

For the bigger list, there are indeed sources that specifically discuss the meanings of the names referenced (eg [25][26][27]), so my recommendation is not just procedural, but rather a "keep this sub-list until a broader consensus can form". As a possible next step we could start a discussion at Talk:List of minor planets and list it at WP:PAM and relevant WikiProjects, and ping the editors in this discussion. —siro χ o 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support having such a broader discussion, but to my mind those sources are a good illustration of why NOPAGE would apply here; the material is all trivial and could easily fit into the parent list. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of minor planets. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Gazetteer and as it is notable. It wouldn't make sense to delete this and keep all the other entries, especially as it would be confusing to readers that would be wondering why there 1000 planets missing. If not, merging it with one of the other articles (e.g. Meanings of minor planet names: 622001–623000) would be the best practice so that the sourced information is not lost. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to minor planets article. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:07, 8 December 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!} 23:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Marcum[edit]

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

This article about a composer is unreferenced, though there are external links to his website and to AllMusic. It has been tagged as unreferenced and as possibly not meeting WP:NMUSIC since 2022. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found any coverage to add, so don't think he does meet NMUSIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did find one detailed writeup here in a local newspaper, but I don't think that's enough to establish notability. If it were considered significant that he's sold music to Harpo and CBS and Sirius and other miscellaneous music libraries then we should be able to find more coverage of it, but there just isn't any. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Michigan and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately AaronVick (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't have references; a sign that it is not notable. There's also no significant coverage in secondary, reliable and multiple sources. It fails WP: COMPOSER. It may meet GNG in the future. Cheers, Ezra Cricket (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ivanvector. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:05, 3 December 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 Bandarawela#Tourism. ✗plicit 04:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Porawagala[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GEOLAND/WP:GEONATURAL or WP:GNG. 2015 prod was removed but no reasons given. Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bandarawela where it's mentioned in the Tourism section, if notability cannot be established. Rupples (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sohom (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bandarawela § Tourism, no merge needed, as WP:NOPAGE. —siro χ o 19:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bandarawela, as per the previous arguments above. Dan arndt (talk) 04:16, 5 December 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pasuruan United F.C.[edit]

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

AFD as PROD is contested. The references showed that the team existed, but I didn't think that the team passed WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage to the team from the references as well. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pasuruan, create a sports section there and add the first sentence from the article there. Govvy (talk) 21:42, 2 December 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 Jeppu#Educational institutions. But I will subsequently handle the ambiguity by making this into a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cascia High School[edit]

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

A search for sources could not find anything indepth to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Note there is a school in Chicago of the same name. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeppu#Educational Institutions in Jeppu, the appropriate locality, as an AtD. There doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to satisfy GNG. Rupples (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect as there another school in Chicago of the same name. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what about moving to Cascia High School, Jeppu then redirecting? Rupples (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: hoping to generate more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, possibility of a partial merge. The Chicago school is St. Rita of Cascia High School and is colloquially known as "St. Rita" so there should be no ambiguity. —siro χ o 19:55, 29 November 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 Withdrawn by nominee‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 11:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mollie Dent-Brocklehurst[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are woeful, breathless interviews, PR and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 13:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I attempted to expand the article, but coverage is often announcement-based, and without a substantial focus on her role. There is some coverage of her, both because she lived in a castle and because she has an art-related career. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morning @Beccaynr: She seems to be notable but its more than the fact that she lives in a giant castle. scope_creep^Talk 06:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep, yes, and I continued to work on the article, so I favor keep because her WP:BASIC notability seems supported. I was able to source her current role in the art world, as well as additional reviews and coverage of her art-related career, and I think there are likely offline sources available about her art-related career in the 1990s and 2000s. I was concerned about whether we could write a reasonably balanced article; Dent-Brocklehurst clearly has an established presence in the art world as a curator/director/etc, and then there is her background, which I understand from the less-sensationalized coverage almost as another form of curation, which is related to her ownership interest in the castle. Beccaynr (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY/BASIC with this Telegraph profile and other significant coverage such as in the Robb Report. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think she is notable as well. I had a another look this afternoon;the work you've done Beccaynr , which is excellent as usual definently puts it across the line. Its defintely there now. Nomination Withdrawn

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Crimi[edit]

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

Non-notable children's author; fails WP:NAUTHOR and generally fails WP:GNG. Article is a bit of unsourced biography coatracking a collection of commercial links. Article was previously draftified but was moved back without improvement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has Kirkus [28] and Publsiher's Weekly reviews [29]. also in Common Sense Media [30] Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3 - this author has multiple reviews for multiple works, based on the reviews in the article; the article could be expanded with this independent, reliable and secondary coverage of her career, but the sources are available. She also has an entry in Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors that is included in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a slew of reviews from School Library Journal [31]; these reviews tend to also be available via the Wikipedia Library. One of her books is suggested by another author during a 2020 NPR interview "For A Child Experiencing Anxiety", with an in-depth explanation; this book was also reviewed by the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books; See also [32], [33]. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per Oaktree b and Beccaynr's finds above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, New York, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability as an author. Thriley (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : She is well-reviewed in reliable and authoritative sources and also has a bio in Contemporary Authors. There is enough evidence of notability for an author. Rublamb (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - lots of reviews = clearly notable author. LadyofShalott 13:53, 4 December 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 Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls). Consensus below is to not retain the article, and the merge option was sufficiently supported to be viable ATD. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion[edit]

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

This car crash is a classic example of WP:NOTNEWS being wantonly disregarded. Yes, there was a lot of "week of" (really, not even that long) news coverage, but when it comes down to it, it was a single car accident of unexplained causes which got a burst of publicity due to some spectacular visuals, a lot of wild speculation and misinformation, and a lack of anything more newsworthy to keep the media busy reporting something else. Whatever extended interest in these stories mostly consists of walking back all the original misstatements. One expects that eventually the results of what looks to be a long term investigation is going to be published in some much less conspicuous venue, and perhaps some news analysts will remark on the original hype; but it's also possible that the whole thing will drift out of memory when there is no definite conclusion. At any rate the article as it stands is a rehash of the news reports without any attempt to make sense of them (which after all would be WP:OR), and a testimony to our unwillingness to stick to our own principles. The inevitable rush to create articles on breaking news events like this, without letting history take any stock on the matter, is profoundly against the idea of an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the aftermath was more notable than the event. The Leader of the Opposition in Canada caused a media discussion over the language used in the aftermath, which did and continues to garner press coverage here. [34] as an example. Article could perhaps use a new title. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Rainbow_Bridge_(Niagara_Falls) page is where this information should live. The event is not notable enough for it's own page. --Picard102 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to wait until a bit longer after the event to determine whether it does or doesn't have lasting notability. It could be possible that this has lasting effects and persistent coverage that make it notable, or it could be just a news story without much impact. We can't really know that for sure a week out from the event. There's no harm in waiting a few months to see what sources end up being written. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, Canada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it certainly received enough media coverage to establish notability, but in the end, it turned out to be a nothing-burger. I would, however, love to see an article about the overzealous overreaction by some news networks, literally drooling over the possibility of a terrorist attack and, if their wishes come true, another war. But these things benefit from hindsight. Owen× ☎ 23:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am legitimately seeing it (claims of an overreaction) pop up here and there but it looks like it is mostly blogs and self published sources. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 03:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I think we can tell already that this will not have lasting notability, and any that there is can be covered at the main Rainbow_Bridge_(Niagara_Falls)#2023_Rainbow_Bridge_explosion. Funny how much longer the article seems because it's broken into several short sections with meaningless nonsense about "chatter about an attack" and excessively wordy and redundant lines like "Niagara Falls Police Superintendent John Faso stated that the car was a 2022 Bentley Flying Spur." Reywas92^Talk 00:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely classic example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's statement. Also, the bridge did not explode, and neither was it bombed. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we need articles about mass-media headline-seeking and politically-motivated spin generating temporary panic, we should base them on secondary sources which treat the topic as a whole, not one instance of it. A sad, but essentially routine, traffic accident. You can't create 'notability' from misreporting of the unremarkable in the very sources that WP:NOTNEWS advises us not to build articles around in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it got more press coverage than the average car accident, but this is absolutely a case of the suggestion of NOTNEWS that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I don't think there's anything here to merge to the Bridge article that isn't already there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is getting much more coverage than any routine news event, even still to this day. In Canada, there's even additional coverage based on some controversy that extends from this. Considering this was a major incident that happened at an international border crossing, and caused the other borders to shut down, its inclusion is justified and is going to be notable and relevant for a long time. – Handoto (talk)
Strong oppose deletion: No opinion on keeping, but this should certainly have some content merged into Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls). Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 01:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think there is great harm in having this article until we can better figure out its notability. The longlasting impacts of this story are unknown for the time being as it happend only 9 days ago. Per WP:PERSISTENCE Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. I think that there's very little way right now of knowing if this will have sustained coverage; however, I think it could be worth erring on the side of waiting a little bit, especially until a more conclusive report is published and then viewing how that coverage goes, should we decide to delete this as WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not definitively saying this should be kept, especially not if this receives no further coverage, but I think as of now it's too hard to say whether or not it does. TartarTorte 14:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - Notable event. IFF this cannot be kept, it should be merged here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS and Unencyclopaedic. No lasting impact or influence. A car crashed at a border crossing, and that's it. In fact, it's no longer even newsworthy let alone encyclopedic. ——Serial 12:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per TartarTorte. If the crash ends up not being notable (and I agree with OwenX that the more likely to be notable aspect of this event is the media overreaction), merging with the article on the Bridge should be easy enough. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge but if merged, almost all of the article should be incorporated. 74.11.238.37 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm usually an inclusionist, but the title is wrong. There really wasn't an "explosion" as is commonly thought of. This was a car crash when the car exploded. Should be part of the Rainbow Bridge page because it is connected to that, but it really doesn't deserve its own article. Jjazz76 (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - noteworthy incident at the bridge making world headlines for much of a day amid wartime jitters, merge it w/ the Rainbow Bridge article BalletForCattle (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to the bridge itself. WP:NOTNEWS applies, there's little evidence that list will be an event of lasting significance, as other delete commenters have noted. It is notable enough to have a relevant section on the article about the bridge itself, but that's it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It started off as a terrorist attack but soon became a slightly out-of-the-ordinary car crash. Not news. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 10:12, 6 December 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 Chinese Wikipedia#Wikipedia in other varieties of Chinese. If there is an issue with Chinese Wikipedia, it can be nominated at AfD, in which case this redirect can be retargetted to List of Wikipedias at that point. Daniel (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Min Wikipedia[edit]

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

No evidence that this is actually notable, should again be redirected to List of Wikipedias. The Chinese Wikipedia article, where this new version is based on, doesn't list reliable, independent sources either. Fram (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, and China. Fram (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. If this ever becomes notable then the article can be remade and updated with the future sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chinese_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_in_other_varieties_of_Chinese Owen× ☎ 23:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't remove categories if article will be redirected. Ping me when it's redirected. Eurohunter (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2024 (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 Chinese Wikipedia. If there is an issue with Chinese Wikipedia, it can be nominated at AfD, in which case this redirect can be retargetted to List of Wikipedias at that point. Daniel (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hakka Wikipedia[edit]

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

No evidence that this is actually notable, should again be redirected to List of Wikipedias. The Chinese Wikipedia article, where this new version is based on, doesn't list reliable, independent sources either. Fram (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, and China. Fram (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. If this ever becomes notable then the article can be remade and updated with the future sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_in_other_varieties_of_Chinese Owen× ☎ 23:50, 29 November 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 14:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Balance sponsorships[edit]

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

Same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puma sponsorships, primarily WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Sports, Lists, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and past AfD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with New Balance Owen× ☎ 23:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO. Let'srun (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is this necessary? SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:17, 6 December 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 11:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FatherShops[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE search turned nothing about them online, apart form the usual social media PR and the two (week-old) paid placement articles cited. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article creator. Wikishovel (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for Speedy Deletion under A7: The user already attempted to add this website as a source to another article, and the only sources online are paid ads. Pretty unambiguous example of trying to promote. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned in the nomination that I already nominated it for speedy deletion A7 on 24 November, but A7 was declined with the peculiar rationale of "decline A7 as there is a reference, PROD". Another editor also nominated it for A7 ten minutes later, but the rules about declined speedies mandate that we must clog up the AFD nominations with obvious speedy fodder like this. Wikishovel (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bad call on @Ritchie333's part, in my opinion. The sources, which are paid for, are explicitly exempt from WP:CCOS. Currently, it meets the criteria for A7. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're clogging up AfD; that tends to get clogged up with debates that get relisted three times with two editors arguing back and fourth. I don't think replacing an A7 with a PROD is particularly bad; the real bad call here was KushagraBh (talk · contribs) removing the PROD tag for no reason. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid-for garbage. Nothing I can find in a search online that would come remotely close to WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no sources I could find to salvage this. (Regarding the A7 tag, see User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all I find [35], still in the same realm as the other newsorg cited. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NCORP. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on an e-comm proposition, supported by announcement-based coverage of its recent expansion into India, which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing the substantial coverage on FatherShops / FatherSolutions needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:41, 3 December 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 11:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asics sponsorships[edit]

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

Same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puma sponsorships, primarily WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Japan. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A cut and dry case of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, but also a true violation of WP:NOTDATABASE as there is not nearly enough context to provide any meaningful value to readers. Also lacking in WP:V. If a user or wikiproject wants to use this and similar lists for developmental purposes, I would support a userfy or projectify —siro χ o 17:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non. Piece is advertorial, and doesn't belong on its own page. Cray04 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly reads like an advertisement. Armader (talk) 13:19, 1 December 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 06:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of rail transport before 1700[edit]

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

This is a poorly referenced and not very serious listicle (I wouldn't be that surprised to find some hoax info here...), listing just a few rail-prehistory events. It does not cite any source that tackles this, the date 1700 is chosen seemingly at random. At best, merge referenced parts to the History of rail transport. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:SIRS and GNG Cray04 (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the claims made in the article aren't even sourced, article itself is also lacking in substance, and I don't see how this could be improved upon. Any information pertaining to pre-railway inventions can simply go in the existing article. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being unsourced is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for improvement. The first couple of sections of History of rail transport indicate that there are plenty of other events that could be added to this article which is part of the series of category:years in rail transport articles. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything that can be sourced can just be added to History of rail transport (as well as part of Rail transport#Wooden rails introduced), which is far more complete pre-1700 anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a fork coatracking uncited and dubious claims for Asiatic priority. And yes, 1700 is an arbitrary and arguably wrong cutoff point. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting — Maile (talk)

FYI, Maile66, WP:ITSINTERESTING is not likely to be considered seriously by the closer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much forking. Azuredivay (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is too short, lacking any in-depth discussion of the subject, and there is indeed excessive forking. Any pertinent, properly sourced information could indeed be moved to History of rail transport. TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper AI[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Believe this fails WP:NCORP. Source assessment is below but there seems to be lack of WP:CORPDEPTH in the referencing. Company is an AI startup and based on a WP:BEFORE I can see they do a lot of promotion, but could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. CNMall41 (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Source assessment as follows. I could really only find one source that I would consider falling under WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Techopedia, Industry blog which I don’t see as reliable. Allows sponsored posts and contributors. Some articles are marked as “fact checked” while this one is not.

2. Business Insider, this is a reliable secondary source but only gives a brief mention so fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

3. PC Guide, another industry blog. When you click on the link leading to Jasper AI, it has an affiliate code which means the publication is receiving commission for signups to the company. I would see this as non-independent.

4. Tracxn, Company profile listing such as Bloomberg or Crunchbase. Fails CORPDEPTH.

5. Bloomberg, routine announcement of corporate leadership change. Churnalism as there are several articles about this from other publications at the same time.

6. Jasper.ai, press release from the company’s own website. Not independent.

7. TechCrunch, This gets a little more in-depth and a case could be made this meets WP:ORGCRIT. I think it would be borderline due to much of the information being supplied by the company.

8. Investor Place, routine announcement of layoffs. Fails CORPDEPTH and also uses the information supplied by the company so not independent.

9. Voicebot.ai, tech blog churnalism similar to #8 above. Announcement of layoffs.

10. PC Guide, same evaluation as #3 above. Written as a way to earn affiliate income. See the number of AI platforms in the article as well as the affiliate links associated with each, including the one for Jasper AI.

11. The Information, This likely meets WP:ORGCRIT and has in-depth coverage and independent analysis.

12. Associated Press, brief mention and quote from the founder. Fails CORPDEPTH.

13. Venture Beat, routine announcement. Also, has a lot of information supplied direct from the company.

14. IEEE, I was only able to access the abstract and references, but does not appear to be about the company. Topic is about the AI writing process so likely only mentions Jasper in the process.

15. Jasper.ai, company website, not independent.

16. TechRepublic, another tech blog listing several AI companies with affiliate links to earn commission.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Websites. CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with CNMails assessment. By their interpretation of the rules, a good portion of wikipedia articles should be deleted, including Writer, Write Sonic, GPTZero, and more.. Comintell (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also @CNMall41 moved this article to AfD after I published this article, and it was approved by an Admin. Comintell (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment A good portion of wikipedia articles should be deleted. There are many dubious articles in WP. But the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument holds no water in a deletion discussion. Also, "approval by an admin" - if that actually happened - is neither here nor there. Admins are janitors on WP, not Brahmins. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
== Proof of Notability: Additional reading tab ==

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/jasper-ai

https://www.businessinsider.com/generative-ai-startups-creator-economy-work-chatgpt-dalle-2023-1

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/17/jasper-generative-ai-conference-in-san-francisco-what-was-it-like.html

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/the-best-little-unicorn-in-texas-jasper-was-winning-the-ai-race-then-chatgpt-blew-up-the-whole-game

https://venturebeat.com/ai/top-ai-startup-news-of-the-week-jasper-you-com-otter-and-more/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ai-challenger-cerebras-unveils-pay-per-model-large-model-ai-cloud-service-with-cirrascale-jasper/

https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/21/jaspers-robots-assemble-fresh-meals-for-nearby-apartment-dwellers/

https://venturebeat.com/ai/generative-ai-will-impact-every-tool-out-there-says-jasper-ceo/

https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/18/daily-crunch-ai-content-developer-jasper-now-valued-at-1-7b-following-capital-infusio Comintell (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A page "approved" through AfC does not mean that page is notable. It means the person reviewing (not an admin by the way) made a good faith effort to evaluate if it was likely to pass a deletion discussion. While I am sure that editor did their due diligence, I disagree that it would pass an AfD discussion. As such, we are here to get WP:CONSENSUS. As you stated you disagree with my source assessment, are you able to point out the WP:THREE references that meet the guideline outlined in WP:ORGCRIT?

Comintell, you wrote By their interpretation of the rules, a good portion of wikipedia articles should be deleted, and you are correct about that. Many articles should be deleted, and about half a million articles have been deleted since Wikipedia began. Currently, we are deleting roughly 55 articles a day, and that amounts to about 20,000 articles deleted per year. This is entirely correct. Articles that do not comply with policies and guidelines need to be either improved or deleted. See Deletion of articles on Wikipedia for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do these count?

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/jasper-ai

https://www.businessinsider.com/generative-ai-startups-creator-economy-work-chatgpt-dalle-2023-1

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/17/jasper-generative-ai-conference-in-san-francisco-what-was-it-like.html

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/the-best-little-unicorn-in-texas-jasper-was-winning-the-ai-race-then-chatgpt-blew-up-the-whole-game

https://venturebeat.com/ai/top-ai-startup-news-of-the-week-jasper-you-com-otter-and-more/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ai-challenger-cerebras-unveils-pay-per-model-large-model-ai-cloud-service-with-cirrascale-jasper/

https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/21/jaspers-robots-assemble-fresh-meals-for-nearby-apartment-dwellers/

https://venturebeat.com/ai/generative-ai-will-impact-every-tool-out-there-says-jasper-ceo/

https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/18/daily-crunch-ai-content-developer-jasper-now-valued-at-1-7b-following-capital-infusio Comintell (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comintell, instead of dumping a batch of nine bare URLs, it would be far more useful to select the very best three of them, and to add them to the article. Quality of sources is far more important than quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're right. Thank you for being patient with me. Comintell (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are trying their best to guide you but it would be helpful to slow down and take in the advice. Please see this comment at the teahouse. To repeat, go to WP:ORGCRIT which describes the sourcing you will need to show notability. Use the guideline at WP:SIRS to refute anything in my assessment you feel is inaccurate. You can also do your own assessment of the links you pasted above by using WP:SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Tech Crunch

Significant: Yes (Documents Jasper's $1.4B evaluation, a significant and notable achievement signalling notability and interest)

Independent: Yes

Reliable: Yes

Secondary: Yes

Link: https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/18/daily-crunch-ai-content-developer-jasper-now-valued-at-1-7b-following-capital-infusion/

Source: The Information

Significant: Yes (Documents Jaspers rise, and the challenges they're facing being a "ChatGPT wrapper" in the wake of ChatGPT)

Independent: Yes

Reliable: Yes

Secondary: Yes

Link: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/the-best-little-unicorn-in-texas-jasper-was-winning-the-ai-race-then-chatgpt-blew-up-the-whole-game

Source: VentureBeat

Significant: Yes (Demonstrates CEO as a trusted leader and founder in the space)

Independent: Yes

Reliable: Yes

Secondary: Yes

Link: https://venturebeat.com/ai/generative-ai-will-impact-every-tool-out-there-says-jasper-ceo/

Source: CNBC

Significant: Yes (Shows Jasper is hosting newsworthy events)

Independent: Yes

Reliable: Yes

Secondary: Yes

Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/17/jasper-generative-ai-conference-in-san-francisco-what-was-it-like.html

Source: TechRadar

Significant: Yes (Drew the attention of TR. seemingly unbiased review, containing no promo links *that I could find*)

Independent: Yes

Reliable: Yes

Secondary: Yes

Link: https://www.techradar.com/reviews/jasper-ai Comintell (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the discussion it feels like the author desperately Ref-bombs (see Wikipedia:REFBOMB) the wiki community with WP:MILL links. However nothing more than just routine announcements are here. The article relies on primary-dependent sources or sources that do not provide significant, independent coverage. The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vanderwaalforces reviewed the page on AfC just after 3 minutes the author of the page submitted it there. What a speed. It raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, suggesting that the reviewer and author might be the same individual or working in collaboration --Javierel (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Javierel:, that is a pretty strong accusation and not appropriate for an AfD discussion. If you feel the user's action are nefarious, there are proper noticeboards to address the conduct. Pinging Vanderwaalforces so they are aware of the accusation. For the record, we are in the midst of a backlog drive for AfC so there are a lot of submissions being accepted quicker than normal. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Javierel This your concern is so inept. This is an AfD and I don't want to comment on your concern and will rather urge you to visit the talk page of an editor you have concerns with and not at an AfD. I would have requested further clarifications from you as per "the reviewer and author might be the same individual or working in collaboration" but won't because there's no need for that at least from my side. A reviewer accepting a draft article few minutes after it was submitted for review is exactly the same thing as an administrator speedy deleting a page few minutes after it was tagged for speedy deletion. Think twice before making comments please. I wish you well. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was told in the teahouse to find more/better references quickly and make a case for sustaining the page. Not in cahoots with anyone, just wanted to create my first page and tried to find something that was notable enough. In a topic I read a lot about---AI. I thought based on the size of notability it was a slam dunk. Jasper was the up-and-coming AI writing company that was set to be the leader and its category until open AI unleased ChatGPT to the world. I think it's a fascinating story and prospects, and definitely something that deserves an encyclopedia entry. This time is a very historical time, and despite Jasper being a "chatGPT wrapper" they gained serious traction.

I wholeheartedly believe it would be a tragedy to see the page deleted rather than improved, but I will leave it to the mercy of the experienced editors, and Admins here, and tread carefully next time I create or submit a page. Having taken time to revert vandal edits and contribute and improve articles here, I completely understand the issue with "people" (many times bots it seems) filling the space with junk, but I don't think the inclusion of Jasper is junk.

I blame myself for not finding better references initially. I do want to think @CNMall41 for treating me with respect, as the majority of other Wikipedians have. This is after all a volunteer project and the community is everything. I also wholeheartedly defend @Vanderwaalforces review and approval (Not that my opinion matters or means anything.)

it is strange feeling like I did something wrong, in the sense of creating this page and garnering COI concerns when having none. It almost feels like the premise of a Kafka novel. As I sit here (overthinking) this situation, I can't help but find humor in the idea of eagerly contributing to an under-equipped project needing more dedicated and passionate editors, donating their time to nurturing it's vast library, paid only by passion (and perhaps pride) --- only to end up feeling as though I've made a contribution so poor that concern not merely warranted, but justified.

Yet I can't help but still feel as though despite making a few newbie mistakes, still having contributed something that is worthy, and within guidelines.

Bottom line: I want to again say thank you to those who are encouraging me, and who have offered their time to give me constructive feedback and criticism. I hope I don't come off as an immature person pouting. If the admins conclusively agree that this page is not notable or within guidelines, then may the deletion be dealt. I hold no resentment for anyone here. I apologize if this is inappropriate for the AfD page. Comintell (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comintell, creating a brand new article is probably the most demanding task a new editor can take on. Even if this article is deleted (and I'm not sure what will happen), view this as gaining experience for future articles you might want to take on. But even the most experienced Wikipedia editors have first articles that they are not exactly proud of now. It's difficult to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and reliable sourcing so, again, take the discussion here as part of your education as an editor. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Liz you are really a great guiding voice. Comintell (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep I need to spend some time with sources (and with NORG) before forming a more solid opinion, but on a purely anecdotal level, JasperAI is one of a very short list of companies that made it on my syllabus and into my assignments last time I was teaching AI. I'm going to do a little more digging, and I'd ask editors to (as much as possible) set aside gut reactions against the riding tide of AI swill and look at this one on its own merits. AI startups are a dime a dozen and produce torrents of promo, but I think this specific one may have some claims to notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having now spent some time with the article, I think the WP:THREE best sources are these:

TechCrunch, Oct 2022, "AI content platform Jasper raises $125M at a $1.5B valuation"
The Information, Dec 2022, The Best Little Unicorn in Texas: Jasper Was Winning the AI Race—Then ChatGPT Blew Up the Whole Game
The Information, Sep 2023 Jasper, an Early Generative AI Winner, Cuts Internal Valuation as Growth Slows

To me, this feels like a compellingly 'sustained' story with more to it than just press releases. I also read dozens of AI articles that use Jasper as their first example, spend 2-3 paragraphs discussing it, and emphasize the unusual notability of its high valuation. I am usually skeptical about org notability so I only lean keep, but I think the article in its current state is basically worth having. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the source evaluation. I am sure you are not insinuating, but I will clarify that my recommendation was not a gut reaction to AI. I use several AI programs myself. This is all about WP:NCORP and the requirements of notability for Wikipedia. Note that NCORP is a pretty high standard and the references need to be evaluated individually using WP:SIRS. The Informant is about the only reference that meets WP:ORGCRIT (the specific section of NCORP related to references. While TechCrunch seems good on its face, it would be considered a trade publication under WP:ORGIND and a routine announcement of funding and valuation with much of the content supplied by the company itself (quite a few quotes). While the company is obviously a major player in the marketplace, it doesn't have the coverage needed to show notability in my opinion.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The snark about AI was probably uncalled for on my part and honestly more about my own knee jerk against these companies! Not intended for the active participants, rather for new folks reading later. Thanks for your detailed attention to this article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take it as an attack. I understand what you are saying as AI does have a cloud around it at the moment. I will say that NCORP standards are pretty stringent and I do not see how the references cited would get over that bar but I again appreciate your assessment. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another note for the closer— if the consensus is to delete, I’d like to request draftification to my userspace; I think the article reflects a lot of good work and if new news happens in the next year (bringing new coverage) it would be nice not to start from scratch. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can always copy and paste the information into a draft in your userspace. That wouldn't need admin action. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 no, that's not a good idea. That would violate attribution requirements. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not if its attributed. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

I'll examine the THREE sources relied on by LEvalyn above

Techcrunch article is based entirely on Jasper AI's funding announcement of the same date and quotes/information provided by the company/exec or parts of their blog. There is no "Independent Content" - nothing here is the opinion/analysis/investigation of the journalist, it is merely a regurgitation of company info - and it fails WP:ORGIND.
This in The Information] appears to be entirely based on an interview. I am unable to find the full article anywhere - perhaps somebody else can confirm it contains "Independent Content"? But on the face of it I believe it is unlikely to meet ORGIND.
Another from The Information but I am also unable to find the full article anywhere - perhaps someone can confirm whether it contains any "Independent Content"?

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, but then again I'm unable to see full versions of some of the references. At this point, based on my own searching, I'm leaning towards a Weak Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I usually edit on books so I’m still getting the hang of NORG. Do you/anyone think the TechRadar review qualifies? TR is fiercely independent in their reviews but I was on the fence about whether a review of the product is “about” the company. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LEvalyn, can I suggest that you make this topic about the product, not the company. It seems to me that there are sufficient in-depth reviews about the product to meet the criteria - you need to find in-depth "Independent Content" reviews of the product - for example the TechRadar article meets the criteria IMO. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TechRadar would be a trade publication and would not pass WP:ORGIND in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard TechRadar as a trade publication at all. Trade publications are solely for those "in the trade" - for example from this List of trade magazines we can see Cranes Today aimed at the construction industry. TechRadar is aimed at consumers and computing professionals and anybody who wants to stay abreast of "tech" news - you are likely to get articles ranging from advances in chip manufacturing to a new mobile phone to bugs in Windows 11 to AI-generated art. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given late suggestions to reorient this article's focus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This requires cleaning. User seems to be new, but they seem to have good intentions. Upon evaluating the sources in the article, its clear that most if not all sources demonstrate clear GNG and go beyond it. The sources demonstrate 1. Significance and that 2. they are independent (no press releasing, ad posts). 3. Are reliable 4. are secondary (Wired, The Verge, and The Information) > These sources alone indicate the subject is worthy of a page. Page does need improvement. Upon looking through history seems page made it through AfC. Cgallagher2121 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing that with only a dozen edits (outside the two deleted promotional pages), you were able to find this AfD. Kudos to you. The AfD is NOT about the user, it is about the page and whether it meets ntoability guidelines. The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP which has not been met. And another claim that this "made it through AfC" is not a proper argument to keep. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🥱 Edited on IP. But guess my vote or opinion don't mean squat. Cgallagher2121 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would mean more if it had some depth and analysis to it. I would say the formatting and placement of your vote indicates you didn't do much editing from an IP but that's a different topic for a different venue. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads like an advertorial, and is poorly sources. Most sources don't offer in-depth coverage, aren't independent, or aren't reliable (like Business Insider).Cortador (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cortador. Could not find any more sources than anyone else. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 13:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm ambivalent about changing focus to the product. There may be more independent product reviews out there, but I don't personally know what venues would be considered reliable, to check them. I also think an article about the product is less useful than one about the company. I disagree that the article reads like an advertorial (it doesn't say anything positive about the company...?) but regardless NPOV is not an AfD rationale. I don't care to continue working on the article at this time, but I'd still request draftification as an alternative to deletion (to keep the edit attribution) in case new events and new coverage occur. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets WP:CORPDEPTH.

Press coverage is not Trivial, nor is it standard. For instance, the argument that @Cortador makes saying Business Insider is not reliable is opinion. Wikipedia lists the reliability of Insider as neutral.

VentureBeat, lists the company indepth. The refernce from Forbes staff, while teetering on a mention, supports the notability in the fact that it was mentioned as a direct fulcrum point to the story about Writer Inc. Comintell (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also just added and found https://venturebeat.com/ai/ai-to-star-in-the-launch-of-webflows-built-in-app-ecosystem/

Mentions a paragraph about Jasper and included original reporting/coverage Comintell (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also just found this article on Wired: https://www.wired.com/story/ai-generated-marketing-content/ Comintell (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouths. There are no neutral sources, there's only sources whose status has not been determined, and Business Insider has not been deemed reliable at this point. Cortador (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been deemed unreliable either. There are tons of reliable sources that haven't been deemed "reliable" or "unreliable" that are news organizations that have a history of checking facts and reliability. Read the source list. The exclusion from reliable sources and unreliable listings does not mean a source is or isn't inherently unreliable. At that point when a source is neutral, you're supposed to use your brain, read the publication, and determine if they are reliable. A source does not have to be deemed reliable to be used; they only have to actually be a RELIABLE source, OR not be marked as unreliable. Comintell (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at these sources. The Wired article is decent, but it is not focused on Jasper. It is about "marketing copy" and discusses Jasper (along with others) briefly. The VentureBeat reference also does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and looking closer it is written by a contributor. Looking further, that contributor claims that they have "worked with media companies from the US and Canada to create compelling and exciting online content out of today's news." A lot of the content in the VB reference is supplied by Jasper (I can confirm through an online search that this was an interview) so I am not sure we can make a compelling argument that this particular article is WP:INDEPENDENT. For the Business Insider reference, the reliability of the source is moot as it only mentions Jasper one time in passing. Out of all the sources presented so far in this AfD, the only one I see that meets WP:ORGCRIT is this. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Jasper AI article definitely deserves a place on Wikipedia when you consider the attention it has received from sources. These sources align with Wikipedias standards for notability such as WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. TechCrunch, a technology journalism outlet extensively covers Jasper AIs fundraising success and its status as a "startup unicorn." This coverage satisfies the need for exposure under WP:CORPDEPTH. The Information provides an in depth analysis of Jasper AIs journey and the challenges it faces after ChatGPT. The coverage covers the cultural impact, and growth of the company, and highlights the companies relevance. IMO Ticks off the boxes of WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH.

Jasper was one of the first AI writing tools on the market, and I would argue that notability is defined by the level of coverage they get. I would say 90% of other companies do not have such substantial media coverage. Comintell (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Article needs to format citations, and user could articulate his arguments better. Clean++ Cray04 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep Cray04 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. Can you address the notability for those who will review and close the discussion? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment Trash the TechCrunch dude. Im an inventor and can tell you thats what really is causing strife. They're a cheapo trade pub that is all about internal politics. If removed it's maybe worthy. My class teaches encyclopedic writing by the way. Ditch the TechCrunch and let me edit on the weekend and I will do much better writing. Remove Tech Crunch and its Keep from me. This jasper product is also one big LIE. FYI. But yes students try it and get A's sometimes, but mostly Fs. Also if you don't think I can write better than you, i'll give you my IP and you'll see the work I have done. If I was bias I would say delete, but as a scientist I must not be. AaronVick (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does this even mean? Tech Crunch is the only issue? Comintell (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also question what this means and your edit history also raises questions but that's a different topic for a different venue. I am wondering if you could address the notability of the topic here at the AfD, similar to how you would as a scientist, dude. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said TechCrunch is a big nothing burger newssite. Changing my vote to delete because I still see it's listed

Delete

AaronVick (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have to admit I have never heard someone call themselves a scientist and then also use the terms "dude" and "nothingburger." Anyway, your votes are conflicting if you can strike one it would be helpful to reviewers. The presence of a reference does not make a page any more reliable than not. Can you clarify if you feel the references meet WP:ORGCRIT in your opinion?--CNMall41 (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: It is either WP:TOOSOON or a failure of WP:NCORP. Each of these can be addressed by migrating this to Draft and incubating in peace and quiet there. AFC acceptance is of academic interest. The AFC brief is to accept a draft if the reviewer has a belief that it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. Concur with the source analysis. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, which one do you think it is? WP:TOOSOON or WP:NCORP? Comintell (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Comintell If it is not the one then it is the other, conceivably both. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Im willing to accept a Draftify if the sources really don't demonstrate notability. Comintell (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Applaud the nomination and agree with what's been written above. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. It's promotional in nature and I'm scared to think that it was written by AI. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should explain how it doesn't meet GNG. Comintell (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Comintell I would appreciate it if you would respect my vote and not badger or harrass me for it. I get that you created the page and thus are vested in the outcome but WP:BLUDGEON. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By no means, I was suggesting something you should maybe do (i.e only if you feel inclined to). My invitation was neither harassing or disrespectful. Rather I was just asking if you could contribute in a way that was actually helpful to a new editor. Comintell (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NCORP, promotional tone, also all the keep !votes are highly suspicious. Kinopiko ^talk 23:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, @Kinopiko, do you have more than one account? Comintell (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Comintell:, please take your concerns to ANI or SPI. I understand your passion as the creator of this page, but your edits (here, at ANI, and other pages) are now a WP:BLUDGEON. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do not believe the sourcing provided demonstrates notability as required by GNG. I agree with Highking et al above. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 7 December 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 remain divided on the quality of sourcing available. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Gabriel[edit]

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

The page as it stands now is basically unsourced. Most of the included refs point to articles BY the subject, which makes them OR, or at best primary sources. The sources not written by the subject are mentions, not sigcov. It's possible the subject is technically notable, but my admittedly simple search failed to turn up anything which can be used to build a page out of.

If someone wants to try and TNT it and start over, go ahead, I was unable to. Meanwhile we have an unsourced page mostly written by three editors with no other edits, one of whom would seem to be related to the subject. That reeks of COI editing. As an aside, while I'm not familiar with the subject, this edit by one of the single purpose accounts seems to indicate that the name of the article is not even the subject's given name. The same user removed other personal (unsourced) information about him. Hydromania (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No time to look into this now, but as I said when deprodding, there are plenty of hits in Ebsco search for ""Trip Gabriel" journalist". The first hit, from The New Yorker, at least provides reliable indept confirmation that he worked under this name and was the editor of the NYT Sunday Styles section in 2009. (MAN ON THE STREET. By: Collins, Lauren. New Yorker. 3/16/2009, Vol. 85 Issue 5, p50-55). I wish nominators would assess what sources might exist, not just comment on the current state of the article's sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA In addition to hundreds of Proquest hits, some book coverage [36] (2pp), [37], [38], [39] (2pp). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale in Special:Diff/1183767902. This wasn't Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people material, but the rationale behind that applies here. Entirely badly sourced biographies of living persons should not stand as placeholders for decades just in case someone might eventually research the person. The old "better a redlink than this" applies. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draft~~ Send it back to draft space so it can be reworked with the sources as mentioned above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely pointless unless someone is going to work on it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've had another look at it, I think it's fine. Source 3 (the NPR) is one of their extended/rambling interviews where they discuss everything about the subject. Based on the numerous articles written in the NY Times, he'd be notable for simply being a correspondent there, appears to have been a rather prolific Times reporter. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a first-person case account of transient global amnesia the individual had [40], in a peer-reviewed journal. It provides context around their life, and it's in a journal, so the sourcing is above bar. I think we're ok... Gscholar has pages of articles he's written for the NYTimes, appears to go back at least to 2011. This isn't some random Joe writing an article here and there; even if we stub this, it can be about a long-time NYTimes political correspondent, doing coverage of early 21st Century American politics, in probably what has been the most "interesting" time to cover politics in a generation. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And just for fun, here's a neurologist reviewing the case the individual describes in the other article linked above. [41], it's about the individual in question here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look at it, I think it's fine. Fine in what way? Currently properly sourced, satisfying a certain notability guideline, or generally interesting? This is a first-person case account of transient global amnesia the individual had, in a peer-reviewed journal.... first-person accounts are not reliable secondary sources. Hydromania (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine to be have me change my vote to !keep. Sources are acceptable, as explained in my long description I suppose. I can't state it otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct again, but the companion article I linked discussed the first, so is about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable for being an important NYT correspondent, as proven in the NPR article, the medical journal speaking about his medical condition and the extensive bibliography in the NYT and other publications. The New Yorker article also notability. Two or three RS, which is usually what we ask for in Afd, hence the article passes notability and can be "!keep" voted. I hope that explains it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this should be draftified for potential to cleanup and submit. Cray04 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sources are reliable.

AaronVick (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale in Special:Diff/1183767902 continues to stand a fortnight later, I see. The article's sources are still corporate autobiography, press releases, and things authored by the article subject. This is a terrible definition of "It's fine." for a biography. We have an entire Project:Biographies of living persons policy on how content policy is strict on these articles. No-one has shown by action that either Hydromania's (If someone wants to try and TNT it and start over, go ahead, I was unable to.) or my concerns can be satisfied. Zero attempts at even a good re-stub. So maybe actions speak louder and it is, indeed, impossible despite the counting of phrase matches. Uncle G (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the NPR piece, the two medical journals discussing the interview and the almost three decade history with the NYT, we're passed just being "fine". Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 29 November 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 03:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Playdon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. She has only appeared in one episode of Supernatural and two B-movies, according to her IMDB. Novemberjazz 06:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Doesn't seem meet WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. Vampire (2011 film) does seem to be a notable film, but the subject's role doesn't seem close to large enough to accompany a single Supernatural episode to suggest notability. I didn't find any stage reviews or anything, but those can be tricky to dig up, so leaving as "weak". —siro χ o 06:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete awfully sourced page. Doesn't meet WP:GNG

Cray04 (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She's mentioned in some episode summaries on Collider for example [42], but nothing that helps notability. Trivial mentions and an overall lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 29 November 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 03:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libvisual[edit]

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

No proof of notability is made, no sources cited and I cannot find any. The GitHub repository also has only 70 stars which further suggests a lack of notability. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge (1 or 2 sentences probably) to Amarok (software) which is probably the most famous software to incorporate this library. —siro χ o 07:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. Amarok (software) doesn't even mention it now. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of sourcing and available sources fail in terms of proving any notability. GuardianH (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surprising that the article has survived this long. Fritzmann (message me) 01:44, 5 December 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 03:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOKRUMENTAL[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted in 2022, and there is no indication that anything changed. The cited references are either non-independent, non-SIGCOV, or listing of quite low rankings. I can not find suitable referencing after a WP:BEFORE search. Therefore, this fails GNG or NBAND. It's unclear whether G4 applies, so I am taking this to AfD. VickKiang (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. VickKiang (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero hits in Gnews, it comes up blank. Gsearch is every streaming site you can think of, then bandcamp, then strange sites you've never heard of. Delete for lack of any type of sourcing, pretty much same as last time around. Oaktree b (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Uggh, I also voted in the last AfD 15 months ago, and not a single thing has changed for this group in the time since, no matter how much they YELL their name. Still only visible in their own social media and self-promotion sites, with no notice from anyone reliable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find anything substantial to support the notability of the subject of this article. ResonantDis_tortion 22:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of any evidence the subject is sufficiently notable — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't find any charts, awards or any sigcov in WP:RS. But I assume the subject is claiming criteria #11 or #12. It is not clear from the provided sources whether there was a rotation on BBC or not. Let's take a look at this source: BBC source #1 - there is no artist called "LOKRUMENTAL" or anything related to the article. Correct me if I'm wrong. Same thing here: BBC source #2. In the wiki article itself I can see this: "The new single 'Who We Are' was released on 4 February 2022 and debuted on BBC Radio 1Xtra on BBC New Faces. The track actively began to rotate on many platforms". If we can confirm this, it could potentially be enough to claim #11 (rotation nationally by a major radio). If someone can take a close look at subject's rotations on BBC, that would be helpful. Roxy177 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian wiki for this band makes a similar claim that an archived BBC article had itd rotations, but upon opening it, there is no evidence that this band was even listed. VickKiang (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per above~~ article reads as rather promotional in nature; the History section just lists three of the singles and literally nothing about them. also has really inconsistent writing; article lists "Andrej Reyan" in the lead, "Andrew Reyan" in the infobox and "Reina", who, as far as I can tell, literally is mentioned nowhere, so I genuinely can't tell whether or not it's a mispelling of Reyan or a completely different person. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:08, 3 December 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 03:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Young[edit]

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

The subject of this article seem to have requested deletion of this page in Help desk. The currently cited sources consist of interviews, WP:ROUTINE announcements, promotional articles and university profiles. Online searches returned results about many individuals by this name, but found no significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United States of America. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see any criteria for notability to pass WP:Prof or WP:GNG. I also support the subject's alleged request to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona, Florida, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree 100%. Please delete. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested, and probably doesn't meet notability guidelines in any event. --Mvqr (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Subject Julie Young is not likely to want this recreated. Any future article about a similarly-named person should require more than "Julie Young" for a title. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how article titling on Wikipedia works. Jahaza (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am sorry this BLP was ever created. There was never a pass of notability, the subject did not consent to it and was sufficiently distressed by it to ask for it to be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. In addition to the subject requesting deletion, the subject does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines and lacking in significant coverage. nf utvol (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Florida Virtual School, the topic for which Young is notable. She's often mentioned in coverage of the school during the time that she was principal (and founder) including in the New York Times[43] I'm not saying the NY Times coverage makes her notable, I'm suggesting that we should cover her in the article about the school so that people looking for more info about her can find it). The school was large and attracted significant media attention under her leadership.

I found a profile of her specifically in a magazine. Vogel, Mike (September 2011). "Principal entrepreneur: how a restless assistant principal built the nation's leading online public school". Florida Trend. 54 (6): 64–70. Retrieved 22 November 2023. and another Reason (magazine) article where she gets four paragraphs: Mangu-Ward, Katherine (2010). "Teachers Unions vs. Online Education". Reason. 42 (4): 44–50. Retrieved 22 November 2023. Jahaza (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I forgot two other sources I found the other day. First, in the book Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning by Paul Peterson there's a chapter titled "Julie Young and the Promise of Technology" although I haven't been able to access the chapter itself[44]. Additionally, looking at an archived version of Sherri Ackerman's article "Julie Young, longtime Florida Virtual School leader, is stepping down" in its original format on what was then an online periodical called redefinED about education in Florida, it looks like a piece of substantial journalistic coverage to me [45]. I think a case could be made towards keep (and I suspect if we had better Florida newspaper access from the time she was the principal that would help), but I'm happy with merge. Jahaza (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: based upon most recent !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 04:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet BLP GNG ~~~~ Cgallagher2121 (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BUT I will say requesting page takedown sounds like reverse COI, buy noworries, nom sent.

Cray04 (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - marginally notable at best. Has requested deletion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:53, 29 November 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 03:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Villanueva[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, lack of reliable sources DirtyHarry991 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Dominican Republic. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate amount of reliable sources available. Liu1126 (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Unfortunately, none of the sources about him meet WP:RELIABLE. What reputable sources I've found only mention him in passing along with other Dominican conductors. For example, this article, a chronology of music directors at the Orquesta Sinfónica Nacional, devotes a paragraph to him. It's a shame because what little I've turned up in Spanish suggests that he was a formidable musician and an important figure in the development of art music in the Dominican Republic. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per CurryTime7-24; shame, given he was quoted as being a brilliant musician. unfortunate loss. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:12, 3 December 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. Delete arguments have a stronger grounding in policy, despite the unpersuasiveness of the original nominating statement. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets named after animals and plants[edit]

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

It's a pointless cross-categorization (WP:NLIST) बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. This is a valid information list. Category:Lists of etymologies shows hundreds of list like this in various subcategories. This is valid encyclopedic content. Dream Focus 04:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. This almost meets speedy criteria considering the nom's reason for deletion is three words unrelated to wiki policies. Conyo14 (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was missing some text which I completed right now बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the updated nom. I will consider changing my !vote with the policy-based reasoning. Conyo14 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Biology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree the nomination is not well-written, but the list is indeed pointless. We have a List of minor planets, a List of named minor planets (alphabetical) which naturally spawns 26 sub-lists one per letter, a List of named minor planets (numerical) (which also spawns 26 sublists for different numerical ranges, but different to the list of minor planets by number, as it includes only ones that also have a name), a list of Meanings of minor planet names which consists of several hundred sublists, and a List of minor planets named after people and List of minor planets named after places and List of minor planets named after rivers as well as the list currently under discussion. There is really no justification in all these lists. They are why categories exist. This plethora of lists is of no help to readers, is arbitrary, and complete and utter madness. We need one list only, which is that at List of minor planets, supplemented where necessary by categories. Elemimele (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CROSSCAT. Per WP:NLIST, it could be notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", but this isn't demonstrated by the article. It just looks like a cherry-picked list. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NLIST, WP:ASTRO and WP:CROSSCAT. Recreate as a category, as Elemimele suggests. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If its valid for a category then its valid for a navigational/informational list. Lists allow more information than a category, so are far more useful. Dream Focus 01:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lists require more information than categories, which the page in its current form doesn't offer. Notability requirements for a list are far more stringent than for a category. Owen× ☎ 02:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has quite a lot more information than a category would. A category would just list everything minor planet named after an animal or plant. This list article shows that as well as what animal or plant its named after Minor planet.

WP:NLIST clearly states: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

A list article is not the same as a regular article. Dream Focus 02:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying it meets a purpose but you have not mentioned said purpose बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To give valid information, and link to relevant articles. Do you have a problem with any of the other etymologies list articles, or the thousands of other lists just like this one? Grouping related things together for a list that serves information and/or navigation is rather common. Dream Focus 03:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To give valid information, and link to relevant articles

This applies to any list yet many like this one violate the Wikipedia policy WP:CROSSCAT which says Wikipedia is not:

Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.

Since having animal or plant names is not a notable characteristic of planets, it also violates WP:NONDEF paragraph of WP:OVERCAT guideline which says:

Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.

Also this list is only made of trivia so it violates the policy MOS:TRIVIA of creating trivia sections and/or pages. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DF didn't give a valid keep rationale, so neither have you. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs sourcing, but a worthy list. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSINTERESTING, etc. This is not a valid reason to keep. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you all gone insane? (aka Delete). In what version of reality is this not a WP:CROSSCAT? Even the idea of recreating as a category is kind of a smokescreen. I have a hard time believing that such a category would survive at CFD, and their standards are a lot more lax. And we're not here to argue that anyway; we're here to argue this as a separate list article. This is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, even for WP lists. There's no evidence of notability presented whatsoever, nor is there likely to exist any. Nor is there any valid navigational purpose or whatnot under any reasonable interpretation of that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an egregious CROSSCAT. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a classic example of WP:CROSSCAT. Nothing else to say here. Let'srun (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla#Drama series as an ATD. Consensus below is that the sourcing does not meet the threshold required for GNG. Daniel (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mon Dite Chai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:MILL coverage, no claim to notability Sohom (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These sources^[1]^[2] clearly WP:NTV and WP:GNG pass sufficient WP:RS on this page. Nilpriyo (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ "জি বাংলায় আসছে ঋত্বিক-অরুণিমার 'মন দিতে চাই', কেমন হবে এই ধারাবাহিকের গল্প?". Hindustan Times Bangla.
^ "Mon Dite Chai completes 100 episodes; cast and crew celebrate with a cake-cutting on set". The Times of India.

I agree with Nilpriyo above and think the page should be kept. (So Keep). At the very least redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Bangla#Drama_series, (where it is mentioned, obviously).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: TimesOfIndia is not considered a reliable source especially given it's background of having accepted money for news coverage. The Hindustan Times Bangla article is WP:MILL coverage potentially bordering on promoting the show. I'm skeptical of it's notability value. No issues with a Redirect Sohom (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that previous AFD was closed as "Delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note about the Times of India: Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus indicates that concern about retributed coverage exists but not to the point of making it plainly unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank I'm not to familiar with the quirks behind the notability of TV shows in particular (and what can and cannot be considered reliable significant coverage), but the TOI source is very reminicent of paid for company press releases that are generally discounted when evaluating the notability of companies and such. Additionally, unless all released TV shows are by default notable (and I do not see such a wording on WP:NTV) this does not pass the "reliable" and "significant" coverage threshold in my opinion. Sohom (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he TOI piece is not a great article at any rate but it’s more a way to verify the longevity of the series. Again, if sources are judged insufficient for a standalone page, I think at least a redirect should be considered. But I think some informations would be lost-for example the section Adptations is of interest and helps the reader navigate between remakes. If there was an article for the original Varudhini Parinayam, I would favor a redirect to it, but so far, ithat page is a redirect. And obviously, no, not all released TV shows are by default notable. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Poor-quality promotional sourcing is not sufficient for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page contains quite important sources. which passes Wp:GNG coverage. So there is no question of deleting and redirecting this page. Nilpriyo (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided only two sources, both of which are typical WP:MILL promotional coverage. I don't see how this satisfies any notability guidelines. If you want this page to be kept, please provide reliable, independent, third-party coverage of the show. Sohom (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, sources in the article are mill promo refs, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 13:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing looks like work provided by the marketing department of the series. No significant or in-depth coverage. The Banner talk 13:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Zee TV#Drama series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rabba Ishq Na Hove[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 01:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:00, 22 November 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 01:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_TV#Drama_series, where it is mentioned, for now.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:51, 2 December 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. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimie Leonarder[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Nothing in gnews, and google books and Australian search engine Trove only come up with 1 line mentions. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I've added 6 RSs (5 via Newsbank which require subscription). I think there's enough now to meet GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kudos to Cabrils: mighty effort to find all those sources when the nominator could find only 1 line mentions. You've addressed WP:SIGCOV. I've added another one for the doco on the subject. As for alternative name Jay Katz see 1, 2 and 3.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:25, 30 November 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 02:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redkey USB[edit]

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

The user who created this article was connected with this company. Lacks notability/independent coverage (cited with a lot of seo guest posts). KevinTextor (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While a brief search suggests it's feasible we could have an article on this (eg. Italian language Wired [46], Web User, [47]), the UPE issue along with the lack of any real suggestion of notability in the article (aside from a claimed viral video) mean there's not much worth holding on to. This is basically an entry in a computer catalog. —siro χ o 07:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are several arguments why the article should remain as a Wikipedia page. These are the arguments: 1. No evidence of connection: There is no concrete evidence to suggest a connection between the creator of the article and the company in question. Such an accusation is unfounded and should therefore be dismissed. 2. Recent edits and references: Several modifications have been made to the text of the article, which have significantly improved the article's references, added a new section and several noteworthy links, including distinctions obtained by the company. These references are independent and valid, which give important coverage to the article. The editor's suggestion that these references are for SEO purposes is speculative and unfounded. 3. Established presence and neutrality of the article: The page has been in existence for some time, demonstrating the presence and relevance of the product. The content is neutral and informative, aimed at serving the public interest, not self-promotion. 4. Concerns about the editor who requested the removal of the article: The user who nominated the article for removal is relatively new, with his main activity being the nomination of two articles for removal. This raises concerns about their possible inexperience, conflict of interest or other motives. The use of a single link as a basis for deletion is weak and rectifiable, and should not, on its own, be grounds for deletion under Wikipedia's policies. For all of the above reasons, the article should remain on Wikipedia and be improved if necessary.Juanma281984 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the additional content added?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is definitely on the line for passing GNG. I'm leaning towards delete as it's hard to find much significant independent coverage. The most significant source I could find is the aforementioned "viral video", the main focus of which is redkey USB and has 6 million views. Most everything else I can find is minor and or published by the parent company. Their Instagram has ~800 followers which leads me to believe they would fail GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 01:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This in Computer Hoy [48], but it's a tiny article. El Espectator seems notable [49] but it's written by "the editors" so feels like a product placement. I'm not seeing enough coverage in RS to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 29 November 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 Radio Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Coutts[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:JOURNALIST. The sources merely confirm she has conducted interviews and are not significant coverage of her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Radio, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the article fails WP:BIO. As per nom, there is no significant independent coverage. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 00:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two comments above get it right. This article fails to qualify on all counts and should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete~~, I've tagged the article for a speedy delete as it makes no claim to notability at all. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)~~ as per nomination, not notable. Interviewing notable people doesn't make someone notable in and of themselves. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted that. What speedy deletion criteria deals with notability? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A7 - No indication of importance. Your reason for reversion was rational though. TarnishedPath^talk 23:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That policy has stated "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability" (and has done for at least ten years). So no, it doesn't deal with notability, and I would advise you to read up on policy before participating in further debates. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radio Australia per WP:ATD-R. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radio Australia - this is a valid alternative to deletion.— MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ritchie333, MaxnaCarta. Cabrils (talk) 00:32, 30 November 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.

[1] ttps://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/charlotte-49ers/article245693775.html

[2] ttps://charlottesports.org/appalachian-state-and-charlotte-to-play-in-2025-dukes-mayo-classic/

[3] ttps://www.ninertimes.com/sports/charlotte-mens-basketball-overcomes-23-point-deficit-to-down-in-state-rival-appalachian-state/article_1b7a46a2-740a-11ed-bdfd-b792d6fecd4d.html

[4] ttps://www.ninertimes.com/sports/charlotte-mens-basketball-hosts-in-state-rival-appalachian-state/article_675b003a-7251-11ed-a3e1-17ca955cabd8.html

[5] ttps://www.nbcsports.com/college-football/news/budding-rivalry-in-north-carolina-charlotte-app-state-schedule-two-games

[6] "জি বাংলায় আসছে ঋত্বিক-অরুণিমার 'মন দিতে চাই', কেমন হবে এই ধারাবাহিকের গল্প?". Hindustan Times Bangla.

[7] "Mon Dite Chai completes 100 episodes; cast and crew celebrate with a cake-cutting on set". The Times of India.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]