Ellen Hadden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A quick search shows her notability does not rise appear to meet GNG Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can barely find any indication that she existed, and I find nothing that indicates she would be notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The first three sources in the current version of the article are about her sister Mary Anne (or Anne) Hadden, a librarian, not about Ellen Hadden who is the subject of this article. Additionally, one of these sources an Arcadia Press "Images of America" book. Several discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard resulted in mixed opinions on the reliability of these picture books on local communities whose primary audience is likely either locals or tourists. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I wrote this article so let me comment on this deletion action. There is indeed not much material about Ellen Hadden but there are not many portraits of women in WP:EN. Her work was presented during World' Fair and she was mentioned in Who's Who in American Art. She was a tapestry artist. As for the comments by Netherzone. The first 3 references are not employed to talk about Anne Hadden. Simply, the material about Ellen can be found in publications about Anne because they were sister, they had the same parents and came to States on the same ship (Inman Line in 1891). As for the Arcadia Press reference being of lesser quality because these are "picture books" for tourists. I know nothing about "mixed opinions" about these books. I searched now "google scholar" for "jeff norman" and he is referenced in other books on "Big Sur" as "local historian" with some reverence. Also, I agree that she is a local/regional artist but I do not agree that her WP entry should be deleted. Puncinus (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found a short bio on AskArt. The AskArt bio is derived from the biography in Artists in California 1786-1940 https://www.askart.com/artist/Ellen_Hadden/10022351/Ellen_Hadden.aspx That gives a citation for birth and death. She is also listed in AKL Online (use wiki library) https://www-degruyter-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/database/AKL/entry/_00420827/html. The artist still doesn't seem to rise to notable. I will take another look for sources. I don't see how her sister's obituary can be proof of notability for Ellen. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sadly as she sounds like a very cool and creative woman. Unfortunately she is not notable by WP criteria and guidelines, but her sister Anne probably is. The current sourcing does not support notability, and an online BEFORE search does not reveal anything to support GNG nor NARTIST. The AskArt entry/Artists in California entry is not enough to convince me. For some reason I'm unable to view the AKL entry that WomenArtistUpdates found. Once I do read it if it influences my !vote, I'll add another comment. Netherzone (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Fix ping Netherzone (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable as an embroiderer. Not notable as a decorator. AKL (De Gruyter) only lists

Further Names
   Hadden, Ellen
Gender
   female
Occupation
   designer; decorator; decorative artist
Geographical data
   Pacific Grove (California)
Country
   United States of America; Ireland
Place of birth
   Ireland
Date cited
   1939
Location
   AKLONLINE

I can't bring this up to notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.askart.com/artist/Ellen_Hadden/10022351/Ellen_Hadden.aspx	~		~ entire entry "Born in Ireland on April 2, 1877. By the 1930s Hadden had settled on the Monterey Peninsula. She studied locally with Ralph Johonnot. A spinster, she was a resident of Pacific Grove until her death at Palo Alto Hospital on Jan. 15, 1949. Exh: GGIE."	~ Partial
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-peninsula-times-tribune-mary-anne-ha/127887175/			obituary of sister Mary Anne. passing mention	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=9MVxp7W0IjUC&dq=Anne+Hadden&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q=Anne%20Hadden&f=false	~	?	topic is Mary Anne. not one mention of Ellen.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV whether using the sources cited in the article or searching for results over the internet. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Republic of Benin (1967) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reliable source confirms this flag's existence; James Minahan has absolutely no sources cited in any of his books for this flag (and others). The Flag Bulletin (#023) Vol.6 No.4 on page 134 says that "its flag, if any, is unknown". NorthTension (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Nigeria. C F A 💬 16:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Republic of Benin (1967). Djflem (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The claim is that the flag doesn't appear to have been real, so I don't see how a merger is appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Colotlán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am not sure how this article can pass basic WP:GNG, Symbols? The title seems wrong, I would suggest a part merge to Colotlán or either delete. Govvy (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect: I could not find any coverage by Mexican media and the only cited source is from the city government [8]. Similarly, the Spanish Wikipedia article also only cites primary sources and the Flags of the World entry. Per WP:PRIMARY, a standalone article cannot be predicated on primary sources, but they may be utilized for small sections. Therefore, Symbols of Colotlán should redirect and its corresponding information be merged to Colotlán. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Otago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find any sources that talk about this flag. The current sources are a passing mention related to the designer's opinion on something else, and flags of the world which is a deprectated source. couldn't find any books, news articles, even on the council website wasn't anything. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying im not saying this flag is inaccurate just saying its not notable enough to have its own article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very odd that it's not on the council website - it is the official flag and is flown outside their headquarters. Also not quite sure why FOTW is a deprecated source - it's still active and currently undergoing a major upgrade. I'll look for more sources. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:FOTW ->Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom or Merge into the main Otago article. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not understanding what the problem is. Otago is a region of the South Islands, and the region has a flag, and Wikipedians have written an article about that flag. Wikipedia's flag collection includes many articles on regional territorial flags. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  the flag doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability to have its own article, there are literally no sources that I could find TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly, it looks like most if not all the sources are print only :/ They do exist, though. And while I hesitate to use OTHERSTUFF as an argument, I'd agree that if other regional authorities' official flags are notable enough for articles, it seems like a double-standard to have this one face deletion. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content into the article for Otago. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Otago not enough notability nor enough content for a stand alone article for this. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is by far the most sensible option for this article. The flag exists, it relates to Otago and therefore should be included in that article.NealeWellington (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm rather surprised that this survived the earlier deletion discussion, which seems very shallow. Most of those calling for keeping it cited only the sheer number of sources all piled up in one place, with apparently nobody, including the nominator, actually looking at them. Well, I've looked at them all, or at least those that are still online, and they are all nearly exactly the same: some fan horror fan website or podcast writes like two paragraphs saying "these are kind of cool" and then reproduces several of the illustrations (although those have mostly been taken down now as well). I didn't find a single one that a person could honestly characterize as significant coverage from a reliable source.

The use of external links is also problematic, we don't usually include 140 external links in the body of an article, or any at all, actually. It would be more effort than this article is worth to even correct this problem as this appears to have been a flash-in-the-pan fad that the artist did to raise money for some other project, from what I can glean from the extremely scant actual coverage that goes beyond "hey look at this." Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Comics and animation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't agree that it can be characterized as a "flash-in-the-pan fad" when it's been going on for 10 years continues to get coverage since the last time a source was added to the article, 1, 2, 3. What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable, personally I would say that what is here gets the subject over GNG. And "article is bad/weird/unusual" is not a valid reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just saying What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable is easy enough, but I don't think you can actually show that any of this coverage has any depth at all, and also none of it is what would be considered a reliable source, which you haven't addressed with your reply. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are considered reliable by the horror project as far as I know.★Trekker (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing whatever specialized sourcing guideline you are referring to. "I think a WikiProject agrees with me" is not a valid argument as that is obviously not how we determine what is a reliable source. Geek Tyrant, for example, does not look at all like proffessional journalism. Neither does The Retroist, which spilled all of 131 words on the subject, hardly in-depth coverage. Paste (magazine) seems an ok source, but they wrote only five sentences, that again, boiled down to "hey look at this guys Tumblr" and nothing else. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am satisfied with the existing coverage. The page might do with some cleanup, true. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm honestly confused how you could look at literally any of the sources and feel that they present the subject in any depth. There's nothing beyond "hey look at this" which is why the article is just the same. There's a good number of sources, but if you can't point to at least a few that have some depth then how can you be satisfied with it? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have already stated that 3 times or maybe more and Trekker has already kindly replied. Check the definition of significant on Wikipedia, if you wish. Various sources are independent and reliable and address the productions directly; the coverage can be considered significant either individually, or collectively, if your concern is the number of words or sentences of each of the sources. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Check the definition of significant on Wikipedia, if you wish. Yeah, I'm aware of it, the sentence you quote actually says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis added). This is my entire point, there is no detailed analysis in any of the sources. A whole bunch of brief mentions that say nothing of substance doesn't meet the bar. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I never doubted you knew it. But that's what Trekker already told you, the threshold between in-depth and not in-depth can appear debatable. The dichotomy detail/vs/trivial mention, on the other hand, less so. And various sources are clearly not passing mentions but address the topic directly, yes. You might, personally, wish there were more details or might not like what the source says, or what you see, or the way the article says things, or maybe you find it of little interest, etc., but some sources can reasonably be called detailed and can definitely not be called trivial coverage. I don't like it either, at all, if you want to know the truth, but, from my understanding of the guideline, it may be considered notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. The first source is "Geek Tyrant" which does not seem like the most reliable of sources and is only five sentences, so not significant coverage. The second source is similarly "ComingSoon.net" which is only four sentences long. The third source is "ComingSoon.net" again, this time with five sentences. I don't see the significant coverage in reliable sources here that would suggest this might meet WP:GNG. I'd consider an article on the artist rather than this one of their art projects, but this seems far from WP:ARTIST standards like "significant new concept, theory, or technique," "substantial part of a significant exhibition," or "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Elspea756 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not replying on the significant/not significant issue, but I would not be opposed to redirecting it to Travis Falligant (see https://nerdist.com/article/scooby-doo-horror-icons-art-michael-myers-jason-voorhees-freddy-krueger/ https://in.ign.com/scooby-doo/62024/news/artist-imagines-scooby-doo-meeting-freddy-jason-and-more (both about the Scooby-Doo work and not quoted in the article, if I am not mistaken) https://bloody-disgusting.com/images/3605367/artist-travis-falligants-adorable-horror-babies-ready-animated-series/ https://www.altpress.com/an_artist_transformed_disney_princesses_into_popular_horror_movie_character/ that could help establish his new concept is the cute x horror crossover) but in the meantime, this is perhaps his best known and (I think) most extensive work and we can't redirect it to a non-existing page. Again, if other users think renaming and reshaping the page is better, I am not opposed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've checked these suggested sources, and am regretting that I spent any time doing so. I am switching my previous comment to "strong delete," as I am further convinced this is nowhere near WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Elspea756 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what is puzzling to me as well. The last AFD ended in a keep result because there was no actual discussion of the quality of the sources. That's fair, when nominating something for deletion the quality of the sources is almost always a key element and the onus is on the nominator to make that point.

  Unlike the previous nominator, I did take the time to look at them, and there's nothing there beyond "look at this" which obviously does not constitute significant coverage, whether the sources are reliable or not.

  The suggested new sources are just more of the same. Fan sites need to keep grinding out content to attract readers, and that is all that this coverage is, a couple sentences, then a bunch of examples of the works. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nerdist is not a fan site, IGN is not a fan site, Altpress is not a fan site, Bloody Disgusting is not a fan site. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lucas (playwright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Having that tag on the article isn't a valid reason to delete. Also, the editor who added that paid tag years ago didn't give any proof or an explanation for why it was added, so I'm not even sure it should be on the article. Instead, for an AfD we are concerned with notability and for that the subject easily passes. In addition to the citations already in the article, there are a ton more out there, including a long list of citations on the article's talk page. Add in all the additional notable citations for this author in places like The Herald (link), American Theater (link), and WBUR (link), along with coverage of his plays in Playbill (link) and many other places, and this playwright easily meets our notability guidlines.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can always ask. @Smartse: what led you to add the UPE tag to this article, and do you think that still applies? BD2412 T 00:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Williams (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't see that this has WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources or that they meet WP:NACTOR. The article itself lists roles in multiple TV series and TV movies, however I can't see reliable sourcing to support the claims. The only independent reliable source which has SIGCOV I could find in an WP:BEFORE was this. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Virginia. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Not enough coverage to write a verifiable article and certainly not enough to establish notability. I can't find any significant coverage. The CBC article linked is about Tim Williams (actor), not this guy. C F A 💬 02:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft. Tag everything that is uncited as {{citation needed}} and tag everything that is cited to IMDb as {{better citation needed}}. BD2412 T 03:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can go incubated and sources added. Tesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there any sources that could be added though? This person's notability has not been established in nearly a decade. I doubt something big is going to happen in the next six months before it is deleted. C F A 💬 14:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yazeed Al Rashed Al Khuzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. An author with non notable literary works. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, Jordan, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mullen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks references other than external links to the subject's own sites/publications. Reads like a resume of her career, as in the list of grants, and an advert for her published works. No examination or analysis of her work and significance, if any, nor independent discussion of her relationship to the pantheon of modern poets/authors. A WP:BEFORE search turns up just her books and news reports of one incident in Fall, 2023, when she resigned in protest over the Israel-Hamas war. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:BIO. As far as third party, independent publications about the subject, they are mostly limited to the one event mentioned. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, California, and Iowa. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Humphreys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF among others. All sources seem to be to those non-compliant with WP:FRIND. Moreover, quite a few of them are to the subject himself. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Science, and Astronomy. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only case for notability appears to be as a fringe theorist. But per WP:FRINGE and WP:V, we need reliable sources in mainstream sources to provide a neutral mainstream view on these theories, and I found none. If we had enough reliable (mainstream) reviews of his book we could retarget this as an article about the book with a redirect from his name, but I didn't find any of those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment YEC isn't "fringe" in any meaningful sense, and Young Earth creationism doesn't label it as such; it's a religious perspective, and WP:FRINGE directly addresses this: For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus, comments on his scientific ideas by theologians would be addressing the topic directly and potentially count towards notability, and the search can't stop with scientists. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Being at odds with pretty much all sciences it touches" is a meaningful sense of "fringe". So, yes, YEC is very much fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism... all are at odds with pretty much all the sciences they touch. But they're not fringe because fringe is science absent religion, rather than religious perspectives on scientific topics. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:FRINGE is not science absent religion. I promise you. If you disagree, go ask around and see if there is consensus for your position. jps (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ fringe? The parting of the Red Sea? The direct divine revelation of the Quran or the Book of Mormon? If you think any of them might be, that's an intellectually honest but encyclopedically useless answer in that it would require religious topics be described as if they were not. If none of them are, then how do you articulate an intellectually consistent differentiation between FRINGE and unproven (and arguably unprovable) religious claims? Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Claims that Jesus Christ bodily rose from the dead or that the Red Sea literally split apart as it is depicted in, say, Hollywood blockbusters inasmuch as such phenomena are claimed to have occurred in an empirically verifiable way are fringe claims. That is, they are not verified by the relevant academic scholars in the field and it is only cultists outside of the academic WP:MAINSTREAM who claim otherwise. That it also happens to be an article of faith is irrelevant. When there are empirical claims being made, the domain of interest are those academic subjects which study empirical claims. The "divine revelation of the Qu'ran" is not an empirical claims as far as I can tell. Unless there is some person arguing that such a "divine revelation" was done by some empirical, measurable means. jps (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens: YEC, presented as a scientific theory in the 21st century, is unquestionably fringe. There is nothing in the article in question presenting the subject as a theologian or a fantasy novelist or as any other type of person for whom this might plausibly considered as non-fringe; the article frames his work purely as science, and as such it is fringe. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep saying that as if repeating it will make it true. It's a theological stance, derived from a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, trying to present itself as science. It's not; it's religion. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where in our article do you find any hint that this is religious in nature? And in what sense does having a "theological stance" but "trying to present itself as science" make it anything other than fringe? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Um. Why except for a literal reading of Genesis would anyone look at the world and say "Man, this looks like six days of divine creation six thousand-ish years ago"? Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Louisiana, Michigan, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There just isn't enough to go on here. He wrote one book, Starlight and Time, which did not get sufficient recognition in reliable sources to count as notable by itself. (The CEN Technical Journal cited now is just the old name of the Journal of Creation, i.e., not reliable.) Everything else is even less substantial. I can't see a pass of WP:AUTHOR or any other relevant standard. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rowley (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Help! Can't find any reviews of the Beatles books written by this guy, hence failing WP:NAUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two sigcov reviews of his books on ProQuest. 1 for Beatles For Sale, 1 for All Together Now. That's not quite there but I can't do an in depth check now - however, it's not nothing. I will vote after I have done a better check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does one of the ProQuest articles include a review from The Spectator? A review for All Together Now shows up in Google Search, but it's a dead link and not archived from what I can tell. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Yes, that's one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: Is the other the review in Goldmine? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. A. Firoze Noon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

From reading the cringe-worthy prose of early revisions ("one of the finest sons of the soil, who shines in the civil and political society all by his own radiance ...", etc.), this appears to have been created as a memorial, which is not what the encyclopedia is for.

Searching online and offline in English and Bengali found nothing beyond the short obituary and death anniversary notice, a primary source program listing, and bookseller sites. It doesn't amount to significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.

After stripping out everything for which no source could be identified, it is clear that he meets none of WP:POLITICIAN, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that the subject of this article fails GNG, SNG for Politicians and Authors. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deletion seems likely, but even a little more discussion would help settle this for good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete It's one of those articles which at least suggests there's more out there based on what's in the article, but the death notice is only a few sentences long and I can't easily find any other secondary sources on him in English. I'm only "weak" to signify the fact there may be more on him in offline, non-English sources. SportingFlyer T·C 02:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Yudong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can’t see any in depth coverage in RIS to indicate that this subject is notable. There may be sources in Chinese I didn’t manage to turn up - if not this article should go. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and China. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have been finding Chinese language sources for this subject, who seems to be a pretty famous director. I haven't yet found any RS that demonstrate individual notability, but I'll look again later today and report my findings or not findings as applicable. Our article is longer than his Baidu page, which seems kinda sus. Folly Mox (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here are some sources I found:
  1. Wang, Xiaoye 王小野 (2021-02-18). ""数字文创展——来自四维空间的线圈世界"展览开幕：用科技与艺术传递光与爱" ["Digital Cultural and Creative Exhibition - Coil World from Four-Dimensional Space" Exhibition Opens: Delivering Light and Love with Technology and Art]. china.com [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.

     The article provides a passing mention. The article notes: "中央新影集团著名导演朱昱东". From Google Translate: "Zhu Yudong, a famous director from China Film Group"

  2. "电影《海霞》要拍续集了" [The movie "Haixia" is going to have a sequel]. Wenzhou Business Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2012-08-30. p. 文娱 14.

     The article notes: "月中旬到10月初开拍。 执导此部电影的总导演为中央电视台副台长、中央新影集团总裁高峰。导演为中央电视台科教节目制作中心导演 朱昱东，他的电影剧本《达西的季节》、《他们》曾分别获得国家广播电影电视总局夏衍杯剧本奖、中国台湾“行政院新闻局”优良剧本征选大"

     From Google Translate: "...Filming will start from mid-October to early October. The chief director of this movie is Gao Feng, deputy director of CCTV and president of China Film Group. The director is Zhu Yudong, director of CCTV's Science and Education Program Production Center. His movie scripts "Darcy's Season" and "They" have won the Xia Yan Cup Script Award of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television and the Excellent Script Selection Competition of the "Executive Yuan News Bureau" of Taiwan, China..."

  Cunard (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Chinese Wikipedia article was deleted in December 2010 after a sparsely attended discussion at zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2021/12/04#朱昱东. The sources I found suggest Zhu Yudong is notable but are not by themselves enough for him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. If more sources cannot be found, I would recommend delete. I hope more sources can be found. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking into this. Mccapra (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Kamwi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACTOR. At most impact, for directing a quite significantly covered play, I won't have at prejudice with redirecting to List of Namibian writers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Lists of people, and Africa. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:48, 5 August 2024 (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, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Radoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NBIO - while it does have a piece of significant coverage, the InfoWorld article, the others are just announcements and primary source interviews without substantive discussion. It does not pass WP:NARTIST either due to the fact he was just a co-developer or director of most games he made. When the article was first made it also failed NBIO and does not seem to have remedied that situation. There are a lot of minor mentions, but a lack of SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, still fails the If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. as most of them are primary and just trivial Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ComputerHope database entry. This appears to be a follow up from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beamable, note that gamerDNA, founded by Radoff, also has an article.. IgelRM (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you add this Ars Technica article, combined with PC Gamer and Boston Globe articles, I do think GuildCafe/GamerDNA passes WP:NCORP, so I will not be nominating it for deletion. Though I can't say the same for its creator yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the Ars article heavily quotes Radoff, so I think WP:ATD would be feasible again. Not going by guidelines briefly, GamerDNA appeared to exist from 2006 to 2011(?), while Radoff had a career from 1992 to now. IgelRM (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there an ATD being suggested somewhere here in this discussion? Please identify a suggested target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think keep the article if we use the sources from GamerDNA and Disruptor Beam and maybe merge GamerDNA here. Sources for Disruptor: gamesindustry.biz, gamedaily.biz, pocketgamer.biz IgelRM (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nazareth Hassan (via WP:PROD on 9 October 2023)