Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< August 23 August 25 >

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 move to draft‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Schulz[edit]

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

Non-notable football player. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. ULPS (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is the goalkeeper of the Finland U21-team for the upcoming Euro qualifiers, and the next season he will play for Danish Superliga club. I disagree that he is non-notable. I added and will ad more references if that helps. Syvä-äksy (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2023.
And why is it straight "nomination to deletion" but not this: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for sports and athletics. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Syvä-äksy (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't predict notability, perhaps he will become notable soon but as of now, I have not seen anything that amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources. The recreation of deleted articles happens all the time (I do it myself) and you can recreate it then. I don't notability tag when I believe the subject is almost definitely not notable. From my understanding of the sources, they are either database entries or primary sources/press releases. This was all I found in my WP:BEFORE checks as well. I don't speak Finnish and instead used Google Translate, so please forgive me if this assessment is incorrect and explain what they are. If you do find sources beyond the ones in the article that allow the subject to fulfill WP:GNG I will gladly withdraw this nomination. ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The former I cannot access due to a paywall but the latter is the most routine of coverage: a transfer report and from a low-quality source. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like Robby.is.on said, I cannot access the first, even assuming it is high quality and reliable the second is the opposite. You need more than one article for GNG. ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ortixzesp. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the replies to that comment. ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - no current significant coverage, but likely to be notable in future. GiantSnowman 08:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support a draftification as well ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until more sources can be found to establish notability. Article needs significant improvement as well. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete - Article fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage has been identified above, and my BEFORE search didn't turn up anything better. Jogurney (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Satisfied this person may be notable in the future. However, sourcing is not sufficient for a mainspace article at present. Drafting is an acceptable ATD. Consensus here makes drafting the conclusion until appropriate sourcing is found. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gonsalves[edit]

Julia Gonsalves (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)

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Guyana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Zaban[edit]

Alicia Zaban (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)

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Guyana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Wong (choreographer)[edit]

Sunny Wong (choreographer) (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NENT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "排舞师谈天王：刘德华敬业郭富城随机应变(图)" [Choreographer Talks about the King of Heaven: Andy Lau Is Dedicated and Aaron Kwok Adapts to the Situation (Photo)]. Information Times (in Chinese). 2010-09-16. Archived from the original on 2023-08-21. Retrieved 2023-08-21 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "他是刘德华、郭富城、谭咏麟、李克勤、古巨基、陈慧琳的老师——黄国荣(Sunny Wong)，香港最顶尖的舞蹈编排总监，纵横香港舞蹈界达二十余年，全香港每年的大型演唱会当中，近九成是出自他的手笔，连王菲、梁朝伟、梅艳芳也曾经跳过他编排的舞蹈。日前，来广州担任美在花城评委及决赛排舞老师的黄国荣接受信息时报专访，爆出不少明星练舞的秘闻，面对天王天后难伺候的小怪癖，黄国荣还自行研发一套训练招术。"

      From Google Translate: "He is the teacher of Andy Lau, Aaron Kwok, Alan Tam, Hacken Lee, Leo Ku and Kelly Chen—Sunny Wong, Hong Kong's top choreography director, has been in the Hong Kong dance industry for more than 20 years, and among the large-scale concerts in Hong Kong every year, Nearly 90% of them are written by him, and even Faye Wong, Tony Leung, and Anita Mui have danced the dances he choreographed. A few days ago, Sunny Wong, who came to Guangzhou to serve as the judge of Beauty in Flower City and the dance teacher of the finals, accepted an exclusive interview with the Information Times, revealing the secrets of many celebrities practicing dance. Facing the little eccentricity of the king and queen, Sunny Wong also developed a set of training techniques by himself ."

    2. "Man in the Mirror: An Interview with Leading Local Choreographer Sunny Wong". Hong Kong Dance Magazine. July 2021. Retrieved 2023-08-21 – via PressReader.

      The article notes: "A household name in Hong Kong’s dance industry, Sunny Wong’s work as a choreographer, dance teacher, and performer has been featured in numerous music concerts, music videos, and commercials. Though the spotlight is usually on the lead singers he works with, such as Aaron Kwok and Sammi Cheng, ... And for him, this passion started at the age of 5 where he was inspired by dance movies such as Grease. His real start in dance began in 1984 when TVB was hiring dancers, and sure enough Sunny was accepted! His contract began with intense training in a number of styles such as Jazz, K Pop, Latin Dance, Chinese Dance, and Tap Dance. Sunny performed on hit television shows like Enjoy Yourself Tonight, and was invited to dance as a backup dancer and eventually choreograph for these televised jobs."

    3. Lam, Anita (2001-06-17). "My hong kong". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 2420399817. Archived from the original on 2023-08-21. Retrieved 2023-08-21.

      The article notes: "Sunny Wong Kwok-wing is a dancer, choreographer, model and actor. He has been choreographing dances for Canto-pop star Aaron Kwok Fu-shing for 10 years, and now teaches dance at Kwok's Studio Workshop and Cafe in Causeway Bay, in which he has shares. Recently he has been directing the dance scenes for Pala Pala Sakura, a movie starring Kwok and Cecilia Cheung Pak-chi being filmed in Shanghai."

    4. "見證排舞師Sunny娶老婆 城城冇結婚衝動" [Witness choreographer Sunny marrying his wife. Chengcheng has no urge to marry]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2009-02-17. Archived from the original on 2023-08-21. Retrieved 2023-08-21.

      The article notes: "星級排舞師Sunny Wong昨日與拍拖兩年的模特兒女友洪華結婚，新郎豪擲逾百萬港元，在君悅酒店筵開40席打造豪華婚禮。出席賓客星光熠熠包括郭富城、陳慧琳、任達華夫婦、陳嘉容、側田、歐陽妙芝及周倩圯等。"

      From Google Translate: "Star choreographer Sunny Wong married his model girlfriend Hung Wah, whom he has been dating for two years, yesterday. The groom spent more than one million Hong Kong dollars in a luxurious wedding with 40 seats at the Grand Hyatt Hotel. The star-studded guests included Aaron Kwok, Kelly Chen, Mr. and Mrs. Yam Tat-wah, Karen Chan, Chia Tin, Ouyang Miaozhi and Zhou Qianyi, etc."

    • There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sunny Wong (traditional Chinese: 黃國榮; simplified Chinese: 黄国荣) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard and the Chinese article which seems to have additional material for translation. - Indefensible (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean St John[edit]

Sean St John (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)

WP:BLP of a business executive, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
As always, people in business are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia just because they exist, and must be demonstrated as passing WP:GNG on the depth and quality of their sourceability, but 17 of the 19 footnotes here are not support for notability at all: seven are his own "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, seven are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and three are glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else. That leaves just two footnotes that actually represent reliable source coverage about him, which isn't enough.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably more third-party coverage in real media and books than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete The one Globe and Mail article is an interview, the second seems ok-ish [1]. The article glosses over some regulatory issues and the rather hefty fine he faced, which I don't think is enough for CRIME. BLP isn't met, most are simply confirmation of where he works or what he does. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather keep as the guy holds a significant position as the executive vice president and managing director of the National Bank of Canada, with a progression in his banking career. Additionally, he's engaged in various philanthropic activities, including co-chairing major fundraising events, collaborating with recognized foundations, and co-founding the Social Impact Film and Arts Festival. While the article's sources are not deep enough, it should be reached a community consensus here. LusikSnusik (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep while I understand concerns about notability, the page does not solely focus on Sean St John's business side, but also his philanthropic activities, such as organizing an event that raised the highest charity amount in Toronto or collaborating with the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, and co-founding the Social Impact Film and Arts Festival. Given his not-usual Mohawk First Nation ancestry, maybe additional local sources, both printed or online, are not mentioned in the article. So, it's better to improve the page for now with new references. Mozzcircuit (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither philanthropy or being indigenous exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on the quality, depth and geographic range of the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poorly sourced, and seems to fail BLP notability! Ekdalian (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a professional profile for someone who is also involved in philanthropy, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Article does not establish notability. Reading the article I see one bit that scratches the surface of a claim to notability, buried near the end: "In March 2019, along with Bryan Trottier and other NHL pro hockey players, St. John participated in a Tech4Good tournament to raise funds for Connected North, a program that would deliver education and mental health and wellness services to Canadian students from remote northern communities." This is sourced to a single article and is primarily about the event, with very little about the subject. If sources do demonstrate notability, this article still needs TNT. —siroχo 05:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuella adaolisa[edit]

Emmanuella adaolisa (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)

Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Splatoon. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inkling (Splatoon)[edit]

Inkling (Splatoon) (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's reception were filled with trivia articles, like listicles and Smash commentary (Best character to use). Most of the reception section content could be potentially be merged at the series article. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge whats useful to Splatoon. SIGCOV and commentary is lacking. Outside of the Reception section, the content is all duplicative to the design of the games. The appearances in other Nintendo games can easily be summarized in the franchise article. -- ferret (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am wondering if some of the stuff in this article would be suited for a Universe of Splatoon article? (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, unless the main article is utterly bloated. There's not THAT much reliably sourced in-depth universe content for Splatoon. -- ferret (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's why we have series articles, which already exists at Splatoon. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect To Splatoon. Unfortunately, Inklings just aren't notable at all. No prejudice on the creation of a List of Splatoon characters article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. [2] and [3], both of which authored by experts in taxonomy and related fields. I would contend that, while the article could have a stronger foundation, these sources, as well as those "listicles" that discuss Inkling as both a significant female character of her era and as one of the best characters of the 2010s, is enough. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect The article is a amalgamation of largely primary sources and trivia. It seems when these type of concept/character articles come up the nuance in notability seems to be whether reliable secondary sources cast an independent and descriptive light on the development and reception on the subject, which they do not do here. I'm always super appreciative for efforts to find more sourcing, but as in WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I am cautious about whether a small number of in-depth research articles on the subject should be used as a foundation for a contested article's notability. Even when peer-reviewed, many of these articles are isolated primary research projects and not independent reviews of the subject matter. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also share the concerns about the scholarly articles being isolated. It's not really shown that they are widely cited or referred to, and aren't exactly public-facing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the standard for "public facing" is; a Google Scholar search for "Inkling" "Splatoon" showed these immediately, and I'm uncertain what your standard for widely cited or referred to. The fact that they have multiple citations and the authors are experts in relevant fields is adequate to justify their use. You can argue perfectly well that these two sources aren't enough on their own, but I think that they do contribute to notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to main series article. That's what the series article is for, to summarize what primary sources have to say about the topic, keeping it in WP:PROPORTION to more neutral reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note the article survived a merge proposal where additional sources [4] [5] [6] were identified that were not included in the article. Does the AfM discussion have any bearing, and are the sources helpful at all? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources were WP:PRIMARY or not specifically about Inklings. Looking at it again I really should have stuck to my "support" as I was absolutely correct there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to series: No evidence of real coverage that can't be used
  • Additional comment: Can we agree that using Smash Bros. for character notability shouldn't count unless the character is absolutely notorious in the scene like with Meta Knight and Steve (Minecraft)? This type of commentary was also used at Villager (which was redirected) and Pichu. The Super Smash Bros. scene changes constantly, and except in instances where the character literally broke the game (see the examples I gave), I don't think we should use Smash for character reception.
NegativeMP1 20:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from having read a bunch of articles about characters in Smash, a lot of notability derived from Smash based sources tends to focus on their role in the series. There is genuinely some commentary that can be derived from these sources at times, but it depends on how it's used in the article itself. However, I feel a lot of the time, unless it's something like the examples you listed, where it is very impactful on the game's entire sphere, they work better as supportive sources than something to build a whole article around. I wouldn't discredit it entirely, but I definitely agree that there should be some pickiness when it comes to sources. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. I feel this has grounds to be a notable topic, but right now sources simply do not exist to individually establish the Inklings separately from Splatoon. Unopposed to this being remade in the future should sources arise. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hidenori Yoshimizu[edit]

Hidenori Yoshimizu (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye)[edit]

Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) (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)

Nearly unsourced WP:MADEUP fancruft topic. I found one source that actually verbatim uses this term, but that does not an article make. Dronebogus (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Lists, and United Kingdom. Dronebogus (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG, meets NLIST, including coverage by Christopher Hitchens in Vanity Fair [7], WSJ [8] and more [9][10]. Article needs some love, but AfD is not cleanup. —siroχo 08:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain how VF, WSJ, and Daily Beast (is that even reliable?) actually talk about this as a coherent topic. Dronebogus (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Drone. I've rrviewed the first source and it does not seem related to the topic here, we are not discussing the deletion of an article about the show, but about a minor gag in it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was my first toe-in-the-water "clear keep" refdump, I later listed some more sources below as questions came up. Regarding the first source, I do think a commentator as prominent as Christopher Hitchens writing, Each new prime minister got his or her parody—in Thatcher’s case the cleverness being a parody of her husband—and within weeks the image and idiom would have stuck. is a very strong signal of notability of the topic itself. —siroχo 00:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - another one split from the parent article. Really needs more sources, but topic itself is much discussed and meets GNG. at most could be pruned and merged back into Private Eye. Jdcooper (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article should be moved to Prime Minister parodies in Private Eye because the disambiguator is misused and lacks a base title (Prime Minister parodies). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this move. —siroχo 17:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important and significant parodies going back decades. I wonder if a lot of the sources are offline, making it considerably more difficult to find them online. Thatcher apparently hated the version PE published and Blair would come to be called "Vicar of Albion" in columns and articles. It's in need of a tidy up as an article, I don't deny, but it summarises something significant in British culture without doubt doktorb wordsdeeds 20:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:ITSIMPORTANT Dronebogus (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These have been a major part in shaping how several Prime Minister (Notably Wilson, Heath, Thatcher and Blair) were seen and generated some significant spin-offs. Dunarc (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a good argument for keeping it. Sadly, it is not mentioned in the article, and you provided no references to back up this claim. See WP:OR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources in the article, nor any of the sources provided above, indicate this satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Of the sources provided by Siroxo, Hitchens in VF has a single sentence on the phenomenon; Weiss in the Daily Beast has a paragraph on a specific parody (not the topic of this article as a whole); and Holledge in the WSJ doesn't really have anything directly relevant at all; Farr in The Wire, meanwhile, is a good source, but a single source isn't sufficient. In other words, the coverage seldom treats these parodies as a group and doesn't go beyond what you'd expect as a natural part of coverage of Private Eye. By comparison, if a novel is notable and widely-reviewed, there'll be lots of reviews that comment on its specific settings or characters; this doesn't amount to notability for those settings or characters, however (and if it does it's a case where WP:PAGEDECIDE would need to be factored in). There's no real case for a merge as very little of the present content would survive a WP:NOTPLOT-minded pruning, and the Private Eye article already has the single sentence that this topic merits. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, there's no shortage of coverage on this topic eg. [11][12][13]. —siroχo 16:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all descriptions of particular parodies (and McKay has only a brief mention at that), so don't contribute to notability for the topic of Private Eye parodies of PMs as a whole. McCann has a bit of background on previous parodies, but the substantive discussion is of Blair. There could be enough here for an individual article on St Albion's Parish News (cf. Joe Biden (The Onion)), but that would be an entirely different article and disussion. What we would need for notability for this article are a couple more sources like Farr, which discusses the parodies in depth and as a group. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're likely to be off line sources and cultural references which aren't easy to find online. We're in danger of deleting culturally significant material because Wikipedia relies on online sourcing doktorb wordsdeeds 22:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be willing to accept a couple of actual citations for offline sources along with summaries of what they cover. Either the author or publisher having some other reliable publications would probably be a sensible criterion. I'm not aware of any such sources beng raised in any of these four AfDs, and I haven't seen any cited in any of the sources I've looked at. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, looks fine with the sources here, especially when considering that there may be quite a few that we dont' have access to right now. WP:GNG and WP:NLIST seem satisfied to me. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 18:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep note I would likely fail this article at AfC based on the way it's currently written - the sources provided in this discussion clearly show notability but the article needs help and has for a long time. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the recent parodies very feeble compared with the older ones, but maybe that just reflects their targets. Anyway they need to be included for the sake of completeness. Athel cb (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a well-maintained article but the subject is notable. NavjotSR (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly a consensus to Keep but since this is such a poorly sourced article, I'd like to see a review of the sources found by Siroxo to see if they can help establish notability. Editors saying that something is important and significant isn't valued as much as these comments reported by independent reliable sources. What seems obvious to you has to be support by secondary sources so if you are arguing to Keep this article, these have to be located, at least before I will close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect. Nothing in the article suggests GNG is met. Not seeing any explanation how sources presented in AfD meet SIGCOV, etc. The first source cited by Siroxo is about the show, not about PM parodies in it (the gag is mentioned in a single sentence). This is low quality OR FANCRUFT and it needs to be WP:TNTed at best. The keep votes above are very weak (WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSINTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT...). To elaborate, not a single source in the article or outside seems to cover topic in any depth, so WP:SIGCOV is clearly failed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have a lot of good sources do we need to go through and explicitly say they're SIGCOV? The article does need a lot of cleanup but it's clear from articles like The Wire and the books found by siroxo that these have at least mostly been discussed clearly by secondary sources. And you've said "the show" twice - do you not understand that this is a magazine? SportingFlyer T·C 11:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment few more sources:
    1. a source that discusses the topic in general and covers at least 3 specific parodies [14].
    2. Here’s one that compares a couple of them [15]
    3. Here's a book with page or more of SIGCOV [16]
—siroχo 00:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Desh Rupantor[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper fails to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a very quick first glance, the sources in the article appear to be news coverage. Why do you believe they should not count, DreamRimmer? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absurd Nominating this article for deletion is highly inappropriate. DreamRimmer You seem unable to recognize this newspaper. Desh Rupantor is a top leading newspaper establishment in Bangladesh. This article carries many strong independent sources. I will clarify by showing more references as proof. See this article 1 from BBC Bangla.
    See this 2 from The Daily Star (Bangladesh). See this 3 from Government of Bangladesh. See also 4 from Prothom Alo. GNG has been fulfilling since long ago. Notability for company exists from the start. Ontor22 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This newspaper does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Most of the provided sources focus on Amit Habib, who has served as the chief editor of this newspaper. Amit Habib was previously the editor of Kaler Kantho.
    Ref 1: This source solely pertains to Amit Habib
    Ref 2: No significant coverage
    Ref 3: No significant coverage
    Ref 4: This is a press release
    Ref 5: Mostly consists of quotes (invalid URL)
    Ref 6: Amit Habib is the main subject; no SIGCOV for Daily Desh Rupantor
    Ref 7: No significant coverage
    Ref 8: No significant coverage
    How does being listed on a government website meet the criteria for notability? Registration is required for every newspaper in each country, and the list of registered newspapers is made public on the website. Being listed on a government website might indicate the newspaper's legal status, but it does not satisfy GNG.
    Overall, all references fail to meet GNG. Hope this helps @Sdkb 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ontor22, You're welcome to share your opinion and highlight the importance of the subject here, but please refrain from criticizing me. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:BEFORE were not performed at the time of induction of AFD. I have added more sources now which creates an infrastructure. There are also independent sources including primary and secondary. All sources are top level news sources, linked to their articles to clarify. The article should be reviewed before any comment or action is taken under Afd. Not the opinions of others. Everything is clear by filling WP:NCORP, WP:N.Ontor22 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ontor22, Even after WP:BEFORE, nothing was found to establish the notability of this topic, and please avoid making judgments based solely on your own opinion. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unfortunate if the
    notability and sources of the article of your eyes are not caught. If so, you should bring more news company's articles under Afd because they are showing less notability than it.
    Not my opinion, To consider said to do as per WP:AFDEQ Ontor22 (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been expanded and improved sources have been added since AFD was added. Ontor22 (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The review of the references by DreamRimmer shows that the paper is basically mentioned along with references about the editor. Fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if an editor can review sources added by Ontor22 and whether or not they can establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because it fails WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (media), and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). There is only one article about it of any depth.[17] Sadly the information in it comes from Desh Rupantor, without any independent analysis, interpretation, or evaluation. The other coverage generally falls into four categories: (1) first anniversary party, (2) photographer who got into a scuffle during the ordinary course of business, (3) death (by stroke) of editor, (4) routine legal proceeding against newspaper that was dismissed as baseless. In each case multiple media outlets published essentially the same story, making it appear that there are more distinct sources than there actually are. In each article the depth of information about the newspaper is trivial. There is no suitable redirect target - no article about parent company Rupayan Group, and List of newspapers in Bangladesh is explicitly restricted to notable newspapers. Deletion is not a disparagement of the newspaper's quality or editor Ontor22's hard work. It is a legitimate newspaper. It is only a few years old, and in time it may become notable. However, unsourced exaggeration in the article and this discussion like "most read newspaper" and "top leading newspaper" is unhelpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added new references and removed word "most read" newspaper in BD.Ontor22 (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Worldbruce's analysis. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref added after Worldbruce's analysis. This wasn't an accurate analysis at all. It feels like canvassing when some specific editors presentation of same arguments on almost AFD over and over again. Ontor22 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though you added 3 more refs, i don't think it passes WP:GNG. Worldbruce's analysis still valid. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dreamrimmer and Worldbruce's analysis. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 1 September 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. Struck or not, Liz's relist comment sums up the situation: A lot of very new accounts making relatively poor arguments in favor of keeping, while established editors and those making higher quality arguments were much more on the delete side. As AfD is not a nose count, this tilts it into "Delete". Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cad Crowd[edit]

Cad Crowd (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)

WP:SPA creation, no indication of notability per WP:NCORP. Ko Eilders (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appear to be outside sources discussing the company here, and I found some puff interviews, but I'm not finding anything definitive saying this one reaches the notability guidelines: [[18]][[19]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Let'srun (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG."Justwatchmee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'm skeptical of new accounts whose 2nd edit is to nominate an article for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 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. Most of the sources are PRIMARY and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the notability worksheet.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Akikormin125
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/startup-of-the-week-cad-crowd Yes Independent Yes The source is a noted book by a newspaper Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/edmonton-journal/129375675/ Yes Edmonton Journal is independent Yes Yes it is reliable Yes Yes the article is about them ✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=ifqaDwAAQBAJ&q=%22CadCrowd%22 Yes Independent Yes The source is a major publisher & well respected Author Yes The book has fairly substantial coverage, definitely more than a mention. ✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr1dEAAAQBAJ&q=%22Cad+Crowd%22+-wikipedia Yes Independent Yes The information discussed seems reliable ~ Repeatedly mentioned on P.’s 268, 270, 272 ~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20200415004410/https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/01/technology/01reuters-health-coronavirus-invention-insight.html Yes Independent Yes The source is a news organization. Yes Fairly decent for ny times. ✔ Yes
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/product-design/a2766-cad-crowd-10-iconic-products/ Yes Independent Yes The source is a well known online architectural publication. Could be a yellow here if you were being extremely harsh. ~ The entire article is about the company and the history of what has been showcased there. ~ Partial
https://www.engineering.com/story/the-best-crowdsourced-designs-to-fight-covid-19 Yes Independent Yes The source is one of the most notable engineering websites Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/calgary-herald/129375502/ Yes Independent Yes The source is a well known ~ This article is more of a mention than in-depth. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Akikormin125 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Here's a quick analysis using GNG/WP:NCORP criteria
  • Calgary Herald relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails WP:ORGIND (not "Independent", regurgitated company bumpf)
  • Edmonton Journal also relies entirely on information provided by the company and has no "Independent Content" nor any in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • Book on "Target Funding" is a mention with a 2 sentence profile, not in-depth, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Book on Product Lifecycle Management mentions that they used data from the topic company to train their machine learning algorithm and for testing and provides very rough statistics on the crowdsourcing projects listed. But has no in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH
  • Reuters article has a quote from a founder and a description of a contest. No "Independent Content" and no in-depth information, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • Rethinking the Future is not a reliable source and has a big disclaimer on their Content Policy page. The article has no attributed journalist and provides no in-depth information on the company nor "Independent Content", fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • Engineering.com article comments on entries into a content run by the topic company, fails to provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Calgary Herald article has three sentences, two of which are quotes from the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
None of those sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ResponseHere's a quick analysis of your analysis using my version of GNG/WP:NCORP criteria, the way it is supposed to be applied.
Calgary Herald relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails WP:ORGIND (not "Independent", regurgitated company bumpf) Anyone doing a weekly column on startups from their country will have a editorial review board of at least a journalist and editor that reviews submissions, researches and then contacts the principals for a brief interview which is what happened here. Any information published independently of the interview is considered valid and usable. WP:NCORP is meant to weed out simple mentions, phone book listings, small funding announcements w/ no additional information and trivial coverage. Not articles in major news publications highlighting the country’s most promising companies.
Edmonton Journal also relies entirely on information provided by the company and has no "Independent Content" nor any in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Same situation here, the paper is covering a labor shortage and how Cad Crowd is helping. There is significant coverage into the company, its product, and its history. There are a couple quotes but that is standard editorial process in newspapers to grab quotes while fact checking. This is the definition of good coverage and a valid article.
Book on "Target Funding" is a mention with a 2 sentence profile, not in-depth, fails WP:CORPDEPTH This entry into this book literally has a section where it says this is a short profile of the company. It is mentioned 3 times over 2 pages THAT WE CAN SEE.. You can see the entry has numerical paragraphs, we only see 1), so there is definitely more there. WP:CORP defines passages in books as counting towards notability. It is even listed at the end of the book.
Book on Product Lifecycle Management mentions that they used data from the topic company to train their machine learning algorithm and for testing and provides very rough statistics on the crowdsourcing projects listed. But has no in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH The same goes here. This company is tacking internal data from the company and training the machine. There is absolutely nothing more in-depth about the company than information from its website and customers fed into an AI program to learn from. This chapter is 6 pages long and is the definition of corp depth. They literally use Cad Crowd to train InnoCrowd so every mention of InnoCrowd can be sourced back as info on Cad Crowd. Also, Cad Crowd is often referred to as “the crowdsourcing platform” several times as well. That is at least a 10 pages just on Cad Crowd. How could you claim you read this and argue it wasn’t in-depth? It is an entire AI platform developed on the bones of Cad Crowd and how it was developed.
Reuters article has a quote from a founder and a description of a contest. No "Independent Content" and no in-depth information, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. This comment is just creating more work, my table specifically says it is not an in-depth article but again, mentions do count toward notability. This article is about several people trying to tackle problems during a pandemic in different ways.
Rethinking the Future is not a reliable source and has a big disclaimer on their Content Policy page. The article has no attributed journalist and provides no in-depth information on the company nor "Independent Content", fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. You are just creating more work again here.. If you look at the table, I only claim partial because I already took into consideration it was an online publication. I went to the disclaimer page and there is nothing there that isnt standard for any small publication. There is nothing there about paid content or anything about contributors. This not the same situation as forbes like you claim.
Engineering.com article comments on entries into a content run by the topic company, fails to provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH This article is items designed on its platform to help save lives during a global pandemic. Since this is an engineering and design crowdsourcing employment platform, this again, is the very definition of corporate depth.
Calgary Herald article has three sentences, two of which are quotes from the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND Trying to attack this reference when the table says it is more of a mention in a larger articles is just projecting. Read the table, I agree it is more of a mention but still partially counts.
I count at least 4 sources that meet the parameters and 3 partials towards WP:GNG/NCORP. I should also mention that sources do not need to be in the article. This is a worldwide engineering crowdsourcing website taking jobs from all over the world. I see several sources in other languages including both newspapers and books. I don’t see the point of doing more work since I only need 2 and I have obviously provided 4. I hope some other editors will join me voting so we can debunk this misuse of WP:NCORP and look at the article’s intentions and what it really lists as trivial mentions. Thanks, you have my vote, table and reply.. I weep for those editors with less real world publishing experience who have to deal with this.
From my perspective, every argument you made on every source I provided was wildly incorrect or already addressed in the table I provided. Akikormin125 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is a disagreement over the quality of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep: I saw other pages related to it and also its resources. The resources used are kind of trustable and I see no enough reason to delete it. Rather there are things to be improved through editing. Eyoab (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Refs provided are from major news sources, throw in some books passages as well. Softowiki (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its evident that all sources are independent and reliable. Also, most of them have significant coverage and only a few contain partial significant coverage. All these prove the authenticity of the article that's why I'm for "Keep". Softowiki (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have reviewed the above and am in complete agreement with HighKing's assessment of the sources. This fails WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note the pro-keeping table of sources was provided by the article's author, who has made limited edits outside this page and deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - there are references although many are based on interviews, so let the article creator work on improving the article. - Indefensible (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Articles seem to be in line with competitors pages..
    Hishamsamo (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    — Hishamsamo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SportingFlyer T·C 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Perhaps the competitors' articles should be deleted too. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sock just showed up on the AfD's talk page as well. I don't know why this particular article is drawing attention, but it should be noted. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On that subject, the nominator has no edits other than starting this AfD ... * Pppery * it has begun... 02:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hoping this is some sort of performance art AfD then. SportingFlyer T·C 08:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Canadian newspaper articles and the NY Times pieces seem to be credible enough for a freelance marketplace.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldabrun (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All sources are independent and reliable. Most of them have significant coverage and only a few contain partial significant coverage Goldabrun (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I reviewed the sources above and find myself in agreement with HighKing's assessment of the sources - that they either aren't in-depth, aren't independent, or both. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the article could benefit from more comprehensive wikification. It pertains to a distinctive freelance marketplace designed for CAD designers, rendering its subject matter noteworthy. The inclusion of references further contributes to the article's merit and justifies its retention. User:SharonAnama 6:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Struck vote per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SharonAnama. - Indefensible (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now we have a divide between experienced editors weighing in for Deletion and newer accounts advocating Keeping the article. This should be the end of it but I'm relisting this discussion to see if there is any further support for Draftifying this article and asking for it to go through the AFC process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I know it isn't my place to tell someone who spends as many hours as you do about wikipedia but isn't 3 relistings excessive? I thought two was the max? I know I am not of any standing but as it was brought up, the nominator had no history at all.. not that mine is extensive but to resist a 3rd time for something that was barely in the conversation? Anyway, I added some references and cleaned up the article to hopefully comply with wikipedia's standards. There are more out there but given this company has 45,000 engineers and designers on its platform, I think it would more collaborative to allow other people to contribute before sourcing the entire company history to prove its notability. I think this should have been closed as a win or at least a tie.. They could always revisit AFD in 90 days. Thx for your help. Akikormin125 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Akikormin125,
Sometimes discussions are relisted three times although it's advised to not relist more than twice. Don't feel like it isn't your place to note problems if they exist, that's the only way to get a situation to change. To be honest, I've been taking on more AFDclosures and relistings than I think I should and that is partially due to a low number of admins patrolling AFDs compared to, say, a year ago or even earlier this summer. At this point, I feel it's best to leave it to another admin to close this discussion who might not see the problems I saw. I've struck my comments. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the article has enough references to meet the spirit of WP:GNG per the ref table. User:Annki777
  • Delete The appear to be some COI accounts weighing here, but be that as it may, this article as written and cited does not merit a keep. Perhaps a case can be made that additional editing and WP:RS sourcing could improve it, but from its current state and good points made by other editors in the discussion, it seems like a clear delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject needs to be improved. the article was listed for deletion after 3 days. From what I see, it has continued to improve and add references." as well. Also I can see some reliable sources such as the Calgary Herald and IEEE Spectrum. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP - There seems to be more than enough references to keep a posting about a freelance job platform for engineers. I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia. Apple pellet (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to again reiterate the point this is one of the strangest AfDs I've ever seen - almost every single keep !voter is relatively new to the project, and (at least?) one has already been a confirmed sock. The article as it stands still fails WP:NCORP. The Calgary Herald article was an interview with the founders and does not meet SIRS. The IEEE article barely mentions the company - it's about a design competition they sponsored. The New York Times article just interviews the founder briefly. There still aren't any articles which clear the large NCORP hurdle, and nobody arguing to keep this around has really interacted with that argument. SportingFlyer T·C 08:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just send it back to draft as compromise in my opinion, there is confirmed sockpuppet use and probably WP:COI as you noted but subject does have promise and could meet WP:SIRS in the future so let them have the draft and continue working on the article. - Indefensible (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a lot more patience with COI editing than I do :) SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    COI participation does not have to be universally bad, just like how using WP:PRIMARY sources is not 100% wrong either. This subject actually has decent ref coverage in my opinion, the main problem is they seem to be mainly based on interviews. So with further coverage it looks promising. - Indefensible (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how you can say that the discussion on NCORP hasn't been discussed? There has been:
    • A table
    • An analysis
    • A retort
    • Voting
    • 9 additional references have been added since nomination that supposedly were available.
    • 99Designs & other competitors are similarly in line with this page. Those articles are in much more need of improvement.
    • Since the additional references have been added the voting has been positive.
    Additionally I am not sure you understand the Cad Crowd model. The company offer design contests for projects so a winner can be hired. Design contests the company puts on to respond to a global pandemic when it is a freelancing crowd platform for engineers and designers is their corporate depth. NCORP is designed to prevent permastubs which this article is already way beyond. At some point the NY Times and all the other references have to be enough. Akikormin125 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not permastubs: WP:NCORP says These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. If you read the NCORP guidelines, the references aren't enough, as I've discussed, and those !voting have not addressed those concerns. And the NY Times article - just because the founder of a company gets a sentence in a paper does not mean a company is notable... there may be better sources out there that would lend this to being kept, but I don't see them here. Also just because other similar companies have a page does not mean this one is eligible due to WP:OSE. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you find this information originally Akikormin125? Do you have any COI regarding the subject? Even if you do not, there is at least 1 confirmed sockpuppet and the high level of activity from new accounts looks suspicious frankly. - Indefensible (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penman and Sommerlad[edit]

Penman and Sommerlad (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)

Stub article about a newspaper column. No notable independent coverage in secondary sources. Popcornfud (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Literally a poor stub article, but most importantly fails GNG! Ekdalian (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rossland Warriors[edit]

Rossland Warriors (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010 with no sources. Fails WP:NTEAM and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per the nomination. Senior ice hockey was crazy popular in the time period this league existed. It may be a good idea to nominate the rest of the teams for deletion. IncompA 18:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - senior hockey received vast amounts of coverage in Canadian newspapers in the era this team was active. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 23:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, you have another week to provide some reliable sources as the article is currently unsourced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A Newspapers.com search reveals an absolute treasure-trove of coverage, obviously a lot of it is WP:Routine, but quite a lot of it is good enough, I don't see an issue with GNG. I have added a few sources to the article where helpful. This article needs work, but WP:DINC, willing to put in more work for research provided this article isn't going to be nuked immediately. Cheers, IceBergYYC (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ or more precisely there is a consensus not to delete, but no consensus as between keep/merge. That discussion can be continued on the article talk page if anyone wishes. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnamalai[edit]

Chinnamalai (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)

Poor references on the page, but I think the main problem is that this has been written as a travel guide and WP:NOTGUIDE. At best this needs WP:TNT until someone can write it in a less gushy way. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The article is poorly written and nearly unsourced. That said, there seems to be encyclopaedic info underneath the flowery phrasing. I'd volunteer to help with a rewrite, but there's just nothing to work from and the originator of the article vanished a decade ago (this topic was their only apparent interest). If someone can find me five RSs in English, I'll do a rewrite. Otherwise, I'll reluctantly switch my !vote to Delete. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's kinda hard to find sourcing for this location, as almost all sources I'm pulling up are discussing a freedom fighter or transport company under the same name. I agree this reads like a travel guide, and it's admirable that Last1in is willing to re-write if sources are found, but if the sources aren't present then - even should there theoretically be encyclopedic information - the article isn't fit for inclusion. I've tried my best to find some and have failed miserably. To my legitimate surprise looking up Chinnamalai on WP:TWL gave nothing. I'm more than happy to swap if someone else with a better grasp of the subject area pulls up some, but right now, I'm inclined towards delete due to no available WP:RS and thus WP:GNG failure. —Sirdog (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Weak keep Reading this it looks to me as notable, but didn’t do an extensive WP:Before. But it might be good to remove all the unsourced text. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge to Saidapet -- I can find a few sources, but they basically only cover the first paragraph of the current article. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3. A lot of sources seem to prefer the anglicized form "Little Mount", hence why "Chinnamalai" seems to get so few results. Anyway, these 3 sources do a pretty good job establishing this place's location, its religious significance, and the fact that it has 2 churches (one built in 1551 and the other in 1971 or 1972). They also say it's the least important of the three sites in Chennai associated with St. Thomas. That's... pretty much it. The article is probably keepable as a little stub, but it wouldn't have a whole lot of content. Merging with Saidapet, the neighborhood it's in, is another option. It's probably a matter of personal preference. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I could definitely get behind a merge into the general neighbourhood. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. A rough balance of views on each side, and neither is so lacking in policy based arguments that I should assign a different weighting. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lititz Watch Technicum[edit]

Lititz Watch Technicum (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:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per failure above. Qcne (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is newspaper coverage. Here is coverage in a magazine covering the jewelry industry. The building was designed by Michael Graves, a highly notable achitect. Here is coverage of the building's distinctive architecture. Here is significant coverage in Town & Country, the oldest general interest magazine in the US. As for promoting the school, it is tuition free. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. Additionally, the school article sounds promotional and the article has been abandoned and no edits have been made for 5 years between 2018 to 2023. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 19:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that an article hasn't been edited in five years is not a valid reason to delete. Cullen328 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per https://www.proquest.com/docview/236230255/E4EE37594B01488APQ/14, https://www.proquest.com/docview/253066291/E4EE37594B01488APQ/3, https://www.proquest.com/docview/196633746/E4EE37594B01488APQ/, https://www.proquest.com/docview/375289471/E4EE37594B01488APQ/, etc. There is some primary material to varying degrees across the articles, but enough to support notability and verifiability in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete couldn't find anywhere near enough for this to be notable. Ant1thes1ser (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking through Cullen's sources first, they're not exactly sterling. The first is barely SIGCOV, the second is perhaps alright but looks somewhat like a rewritten press release (see "state-of-the-art", contact info in the last graph), the third is basically a short database entry, and the Town & Country article mostly isn't about the school. Indefensible's sources seem more defensible. Central Penn Business Journal looks fine, as does Columbian, National Jeweler, and Intelligencer Journal. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an article about a profit-making company (not a "building") 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 agree with Sdkb above that Cullen's sources fail the criteria, but I disagree that Indefensible's meet the criteria. The Central Penn Business Journal article has a lot of irrelevant information about a general shortage of watchmakers but gets all pertinent in-depth information *about the company* from Charles Berthiaume (school director and Rolex senior VP) and therefore has no "Independent Content" about the company and fails ORGIND. The Columbian article similarly has a lack of "Independent Content" and focuses instead on the classes (products) and interviews students (customers) with all information provided by affiliated sources, fails ORGIND. Thhe National Jeweler gets all its information from a VP of Rolex (basically an interview) who are affiliated with the school, also fails ORGIND. Finally the Intelligencer Journal article also gets all its information from either Berthiaume, a school-produced catalogue, the project developer of the building project or the architect - all affiliated with the topic company, also fails ORGIND. I'm unable to locate anything that meets the criteria. HighKing++ 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ORGIND requires that the author and content be independent. It does not require that all of the author's interviewees be unaffiliated with the organization. And examining the sources reveals plenty of unaffiliated sources.
    The Central Penn Business Journal article does not read to me as churnalism — it includes unaffiliated sources like the director for the American Watch Association commenting on the context for the school's establishment, and it paints a not-very-rosy picture of the industry. The Columbian article, on closer investigation, is actually a report from the Associated Press, a news agency with a strong reputation for independent journalism (and the according RSP greenlight), that ran in reputable newspapers including the Hartford Courant, Cincinnati Enquirer, and Billings Gazette. It quotes from students, who are likely to be more objective than administrators, and lines like The learning process can be long and laborious make clear that it's not a puff piece. The Lancaster Intelligencer piece includes interviews with the director of Columbia's School of Horology (which appears to be an unaffiliated institution) and the director/curator of the National Watch Museum. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please revisit the page as I've added sources from 2001, 2010, and 2017 from Newspapers Extended. I think you'll find the WP:SIGCOV of the school and its operations you're looking for. Cheers! BBQboffin (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided by Cullen328 and BBQboffin are more than sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet the general notability guideline.Jacona (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a trade school and normally trade schools are considered commonplace in AFD discussions here, but this isn't an everyday trade school. It is a school established in the near past to help keep alive an ancient trade. It's well-covered in reliable nationwide media (AP) and in the journal of the trade. Clearly meets NCORP with the recent HEYMAN additions (Thanks). 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've been able to find sources for this article like this one. If there are signicant sources then we should keep these articles. Justwatchmee (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 04:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbro Tuckers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sherbro Tuckers (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)

Delete for lack of notability. The family does verify, but there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. It fails basic notabilty guidelines. All coverage seems to be incidental, except for the (self published) book that Peter Tucker wrote for friends and family. The 129 page book by Peter L. Tucker, The Tuckers of Sierra Leone, 1665-1914, was published about 1997, but there is no publisher or place of publication data for it, see OCLC 43918024. It looks like a vanity press publication, no copies were available to me on interlibrary loan. The reference section of the article looks as though the editor/author mostly took the list of book citations from a Google book search of "Tucker + Sherbro" and "Caulkers + Sherbro" and dumped it in the reference section. The specific entries add very little, for example, the entry http://books.google.com/books?id=zmgYSuOAkS8C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=sherbro+caulkers&source=web&ots=GZBht_Ev8Y&sig=jrOlgtRVvS8nSk_DqQU8c7MynI8 has no mention of the Tuckers, but has language about the Caulkers that is used by the author/editor to describe the Tuckers in the article. The entry http://books.google.com/books?id=npUMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=sherbro+tuckers#PPA76,M1 has only this to say about the Tuckers: This is also true of the Tuckers and many others on the west coast of Africa. namely that they had English blood on their paternal side. Or this one http://books.google.com/books?id=QN62ci99H7oC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=sherbro+tuckers&source=web&ots=OGbmgW5H6K&sig=o0Hqg0eXHI6HQ5RL-cyliu1HHhI#PPA293,M1 which only says: They, like the Tuckers and the Clevelands, were descendants of European slave dealers, and their pursuits were the same. Some don't discuss the family, but just a specific Tucker, such as http://books.google.com/books?id=C4GuwL1cgnEC&pg=PA36&dq=Sherbro+Cleveland&sig=rsRwn1MsjXJAHkXDy8x7J-J5tDg which talks about Henry Tucker, the notorious slave trader. Based upon extensive searching and review of the available sources, I am convinced that the family is not notable as a group, although the larger Sherbro group and their activities are. They have their own article. Some individual Tuckers have their own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejnar (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 17 August 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! 20:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subodh Patnaik (disambiguation)[edit]

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

wp:d2D unnecessary disambiguation — Karnataka talk 20:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator blocked as a sock, otherwise unanimous keep. (No prejudice to renomination by another user in good standing) Legoktm (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Exonian[edit]

The Exonian (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 sigcov in reliable independent sources. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and New Hampshire. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • High school newspapers generally aren't notable, but this isn't the average high school paper. From an initial search, I found this GNG-qualifying reference:[1] There's also [2][3][4][5][6]. Some of these are weaker, but I'm fairly confident that when I have more time to look at this later (or someone else does), it'll be possible to find enough to save this. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the general thrust of your comment (as shown below), but it should be noted that Lane (2018) is about a parody issue of The Exonian published by students at Phillips Academy. Jahaza (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jahaza: Ah, I wasn't able to access it, but good to know. Another book that I cannot access, [7], appears to have some coverage, although it's hard to tell how much. Anyways, excellent job finding sources below. Moving to Keep given them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Franklin, Marie C. (15 February 2004). "Newspaper chronicles". The Boston Globe. p. 97. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  2. ^ Strauss, Michael (2 November 2003). "Resourceful teens give professional a lesson in speed". Palm Beach Daily News. p. 18. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  3. ^ "The Exonian's Anniversary". The Harvard Crimson. May 1, 1928. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  4. ^ "The Exonian Marks 75th Anniversary". The Portsmouth Herald. 20 March 1953. p. 3. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  5. ^ Crosbie, Laurence Murray (1924). The Phillips Exeter Academy: A History. Phillips Exeter Academy. pp. 204–205.
  6. ^ Lane, Stephen (2018). No Sanctuary: Teachers and the School Reform That Brought Gay Rights to the Masses. University Press of New England. pp. 118–119. ISBN 9781512603156.
  7. ^ Heskel, Julia; Dyer, Davis (2008). After the Harkness Gift: A History of Phillips Exeter Academy Since 1930. Hanover: University Press of New England. ISBN 9780976978718.
  • Keep, Crosbie's book[20] is not independent, but there's some independent coverage. An Old New England School[21], which is about Andover has coverage of the Exonian. There's a discussion here[22] by Times writer Michael Straus, which states that he covered the Exonian in the Times although I haven't been able to locate that article. There's a similar article from Editor and Publisher in 1925[23]. There's a history of The Exonian in this book[24], but not independent as it's written later by one of the newspaper's founders. Although, perhaps it could be argued from that source that the early official school history is independent, since the former editor notes that The Exonian was, at least at the time, run by students, but independent of the school, which published the history.[25] There's a brief discussion of The Exonian in this article from Educational Outlook[26].Jahaza (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danijela Stefanović[edit]

Danijela Stefanović (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)

Assistant professor, appears to fail the general notability guideline and the SNG for academics. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Google Scholar profile:[27]
    • Worldcat holdings - 79 records. Many are for collections of papers from conferences. Other are dissertations she supervised. About 20 are her books and collectively they're held in about 400 libraries with holding ranging from 88 for one book down to 1. I recognize at least 3+ different languages; some of the lowest holdings are in Serbian.
"For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. (Google Scholar is not totally irrelevant in many cases, for it now does include citations to books—it's worth a look). In these fields one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied."
She has a sparser article in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, arz:دانييلا ستيفانوفيتش, probably because of her Egyptology work.
I'm just a muggle with this stuff, I leave it to someone more academically informed to interpret these results.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A search in JSTOR shows that her books are being reviewed in respected journals and her work overall is cited significantly above the norm for scholars in ancient history. It's not a slam dunk pass in every way but meets WP:NPROF for impact of work. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mscuthbert, I found only one review of a book of hers on JSTOR, quite a bit short of what I'm looking for in WP:NAUTHOR. Did you find more? The citation record looks like a good start, but WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I found and added to the article three reviews of two books. That's above threshold for WP:AUTHOR for me, but only barely. This appears to be a book field rather than a journal field, so the low citation counts in Google Scholar are not problematic (although they also do not contribute to notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like David Eppstein, I was leaning to the view that, if notable, it was as an author. Based on the above, I agree it is a weak keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak Keep - per David Eppstein, based on book reviews she just barely passes WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 18:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Terror of Mechagodzilla. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Titanosaurus (Godzilla)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Titanosaurus (Godzilla) (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 Godzilla Kaiju who only has one major film to its name. It has a few small appearances afterwards, but that's about it. A search for sources yields practically nothing, and the article is already all plot. Given its major role in Terror of Mechagodzilla, a redirect there would likely work best as an AtD. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP and support a redirect to the Terror of Mechagodzilla page. Historyday01 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as it stands, but I am surprised there is not some intermediate list of minor Godzilla-franchise Kaiju. BD2412 T 20:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing in the article suggests this entity is notable, there's no analysis or reception, 99% of what we have here is unreferenced plot summary, i.e. WP:FANCRUFT. This is ok for fan wiki, but we have higher standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect WP:BEFORE didn't find enough analysis or reception for WP:SIGCOV. Starting to think that a character list might be a good WP:ATD for some of these. But there isn't anything verifiable to WP:PRESERVE, and there is a clear target at Terror of Mechagodzilla, the main film it appeared in. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 04:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajura[edit]

Ajura (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)

We have listings of "new artists" such as this article in The Punch where our subject is presented together with other new acts as a matter of routine for music pages or simple, yet embellished, announcements about new material, such as this one in TooXclusive, this in the Nigerian Tribune, or this in NotJustTok, a website that explicitly offers advertorials at a price. Then, we get reports about upcoming award events, in which the artist is mentioned once, as a candidate, e.g. here, here, etc; or announcements about upcoming tours, such as this. Practically all sources offer promotional copy instead of reviews, e.g. "The video is a reflection of the singer’s talent, as it is colourful and creative [and] will definitely garner the single more reviews"; some go as far, or as low, as reporting that the artist "has released new publicity photos" (see here).

He's a young artist who has released one unremarkable single, marketing wise. There are millions, literally, like Ajura. At our most generous, we can wish for something better in the future. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The page was created by a currently blocked sock. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these City People awards notable? This person won an award; the article for the City People Awards doesn't seem to use notable sources. It's not the first award from that City People we've seen here either... Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ask at the Project Africa page, see if they can help. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [28] comparable to the People's Choice awards for example. This should make the individual being discussed here notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The People's Choice Awards, since their inception, are decided through polling and, since the early 2000s, through online voting or polling research. There is no participation by fans in the City People Entertainment Awards, as far as we can tell. Putting the latter on equal footing with PCA would be a stretch. But even so, Ajura has not won a City People award; he was only nominated - in the New Act category. One weak appearance in the field of awards "should make Ajura notable"? We need more, much more than this. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Related discussions: 2023-08 Restlezz (musician) (closed as ✗ delete)
Logs: 2023-05 move to → Ajura (singer)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete‎ both pages as copyvios. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar industry of Saint Mary[edit]

Sugar industry of Saint Mary (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)

While the sugar industry of Saint Mary may well be a notable subject, this page is a very sprawling, exhaustive bit-by-bit history of some estates, and learns us very little about the actual sugar industry. WP:TNT seems better than trying to remove 90% and rewriting the remainder into a coherent, clear article. I don't think we need things like "1945: The Syndicate Estates decided to let Arthur Hallpike rent a coconut grove on the property in order to promote the growth of coconuts for pig feed.", or the series of irrelevant non-sequiturs "2004: "Our "National Fruit," the Antigua Black Pineapple, is depicted on our coat of arms. It has dark yellow meat that is very sweet and flavorful. The area known as the "Pineapple Belt" runs from Redhill to Bethesda and has volcanic soil all the way to Cades Bay. Pineapples are cultivated from suckers, which mature in 15 to 18 months and continue to bear fruit for around three years. Ten acres are currently farmed at the Government Station.[4] 2005: At Urlings, there is a lovely old manse that is still abandoned and deteriorating. In the past five years, the bell in the picture has been taken (plunderer). The Museum has access to Rev. Reid's family's diaries, which describe his time serving St. Mary's Parish in the Old Road neighborhood in 1859. Antigua's tallest peak, Bogey Peak, which was renamed Mt. Obama shortly after President Obama of the United States was elected, is 1319 feet high." Every entry has such things paraphrased from the source without much care, like "1778 — died in London. Robert Christian's son died in Antigua in 1776. It is thought that he arrived in London from Antigua in the year 1777, and by the year 1778, he was residing in Southampton-street, Strand, in the city of Westminster, where he died. His sister Margaret was married to William Gunthorpe of Antigua, and he had a brother named John who died there long before 1777." Fram (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. CROIXtalk 17:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand what is going on here. User:CROIX seems to have recently created a 115,000 page in one edit. It seems to me to be a copy&paste and/or WP:OR (see [1]). Either way, that would be a delete. But then the same editor apparently agrees with the nomination above. JMWt (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment earwig shows an 85% likely copyvio from https://sugarmills.blogs.bucknell.edu/green-castle/ Mccapra (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CROIX, JMWt, and Mccapra: I have added the very similar Sugar industry of Saint George to this nomination, as it has the exact same issues. Fram (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. WP:SNOW, clear consensus to delete except among all the now-blocked socks, including the creator of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Arega Bekele[edit]

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

Subject does not meet criteria of WP:GNG, or WP:NBIO. He is an executive at an airline (regional director), but not the president/CEO nor vice-president. Article is written in a highly promotional tone and relies on unreliable sources such as press releases and this, which is basically written by the subject or his team rather than a professional journalist. Attempts to remove promotional content were reverted by the article's author. ... discospinster talk 16:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy delete This is the most ridiculous case of self-promotion I have ever seen on Wikipedia ("has not only reaffirmed his capacities but has also instilled in him an unwavering drive to provide unparalleled customer experiences", "Samson delivered an inspiring lecture", "In testament to his unwavering commitment to excellence and the aviation sector", etc...). Without even looking at if the sources contribute to GNG, this junk does not deserve a WP:BOGOF and would be too difficult to clean up. I have similar concerns about this user's Alkasum Abba, and others have raised concerns at The African Times USA. Reywas92Talk 17:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"He is a regional director and not the President/CEO" - this shows where the mistake on your path is coming from. Perhaps, you may need to research on the role of a regional director in an airline and the enormity of responsibilities they carry. That would help you in taking better decisions. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G11: The sources used clearly suggest that this article is promotional. Also, please read the article and imagine how promotional the tone is, even without caring about the sources. Here are just some of the most blatant examples:
    • Line 22 is an extremely long paragraph that is written in an unambiguously promotional tone about his education. For someone who has graduated from a highly acclaimed university with high honors, a simple description may be enough, stating where he was educated, simple explanation of honors he claimed, and his future career, that's it.
    • The word "unwavering", which is perhaps one of the most promotional words that is to be avoided in an encyclopedia as much as possible, is mentioned four times in this article that is being targeted for deletion.
    • Literally every sentence in this article overshoots his accomplishments, which may not be existent, and the article's content may sound like the script comes from a CEO from a closely related company.

This needs to be deleted and rewritten in a completely different tone so that the common people who are not experts in business and aviation can understand it.HarukaAmaranth (話) 18:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - doesn't meet notability standards and contains stuff which doesn't appear to be properly verified. JMWt (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, what stuff is yet to be properly verified. Can you point me to it please Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried checking the claim about the "US Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award" - the reference given doesn't seem to verify the claim and I've not been able to find any other way to check it. To be fair, I didn't look for very long. JMWt (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this link can help: https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/news/getnews/ethiopian-airlines-regional-director-honored-by-the-state-of-georgia-and-trinity-international-university-of-ambassadors-corp-
    And secondly, the award was given by the state of Georgia. It can easily be investigated if you are in the United States. All you need to do is get touch with the Georgia state authorities and you will discover that this is true. I did that before I added it to the article.  Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this link is a press release and thus does not verify the claim. I am not contacting Georgia state authorities and nobody else is either - if you have a weblink from the appropriate authorities confirming the claim, then that's fine. But until you do, that's not verified. JMWt (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is wrong to make assumptions. What is non-existent and what is a script ? You are not sure of either but yet you are making a case. Is it not proper to identify what you think is non-existent? If you can't identify, why make assumptions ? Or are we all making assumptions now ? This is so unfair Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it was written in English. What language do the common people who are not experts in business and aviation understand? This is another disappointing reason.  Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be deleted and rewritten. My Dad was a regional director for Qatar airways. I can tell that it is a powerful position. Thinking a regional director cannot achieve all these is in my view wrong. However, the article needs to be deleted and rewritten to erase alot of unnecessary adulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmirex (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the adulations is unnecessary? Like I said, I will prefer a counter claim. Instead of making assumptions, If you find out that any of the claim is false or non-existent, why not call it out ? Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have asked if anyone has found any statement there that is not true ? If no one can dispute any claims in this article, I think it will be unfair to delete it. The University of Mississippi, the Canadian Chambers of Commerce and the offices of notable individuals mentioned in the article can all be contacted to verify the veracity of these claims. If they are true, why can't the truth stand ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb Onyeabor (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not how verification works on en.wiki. We don't generally contact the offices of notable individuals to verify that information on a page is correct - it is usually the job of whoever writes the claim to show the veracity with reference to reliable sources. JMWt (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References to those sources were added. References to the Georgia State award and the honorary degree award and others were added to the article. I did that already. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i added references like this:
https://www.abnewswire.com/pressreleases/ethiopian-airlines-regional-director-honored-by-the-state-of-georgia-and-trinity-international-university-of-ambassadors-corp_662882.html Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. Press releases are not references that verify big claims of important awards. JMWt (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are media houses that reported the event and distributed the information. I have also provided a link that confirmed where the Canadian Chamber affirmed their awareness of the award. Is it until I provide a CNN or any extreme western media source before you can validate that an African man received an award in Georgia? That will be hypocritical and unfair. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of Wiki's guidelines:
"Non-independent sources (like company websites or press releases) can be used to verify facts only"
Perhaps you will need to familiarize with the guidelines and stop this hypocrisy. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not only whether the claims are true, but does it make the subject notable by Wikipedia's criteria? Being named an Honorary Citizen of the State of Georgia is not exactly a Nobel Prize. The only official website I could find about it describes it as a ceremonial document that anyone can request. I would not say it is "well-known and significant" as described in WP:ANYBIO. ... discospinster talk 20:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Wow ! It is very embarrassing to say that being awarded a honorary citizenship is not a significant and well known honor. Are we seriously going through this now? You see why I said if we had done our research , most of these things we are saying would have been avoided. At this point, I am completely convinced that this is just a gang up. I would advise that you do some more research. Perhaps the next place you may go to tell them that being awarded a honorary citizen is not an important award, you may not withstand what you would have done to how people think of you. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you should try requesting one to find out if it is given to every tom, dick and harry. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From being too praiseworthy to issue of verification and now issue of whether the praises are significant enough. You keep shifting the goal posts. This is unfair. And what is unfair is not right. You know this. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is very fair, and it has been the criteria for Wikipedia articles since the beginning. Otherwise anyone could have an article written about them (or write it themselves), since everyone has done something praiseworthy and probably has some kind of award given to them that not every Tom, Dick, and Harry has. ... discospinster talk 21:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone gets a honorary citizenship from a state especially if you are from another country unless you have done something very notable. Not everyone gets inducted into the Phi Kappa Phi (You may want to check that too). Not everyone gets a Presidential Lifetime achievement award and certainly not everyone gets a business person of the year award. That's not all, not everyone gets invited to deliver a speech at Harvard business school. I am pretty sure you and I cannot get anywhere near the stage at the University of Mississippi not to talk of delivering a lecture to graduating students. Not everyone is invited to deliver such high level speech and not everyone gets awarded and received their award from the a member of Congress. And definitely not everyone can serve as the regional director of Ethiopian Airlines in the Americas. For context, the Ethiopian airlines is the largest airlines in the 54 countries of Africa. It is a big company, bigger than many in your country or continent. To serve as a regional director there is not for everyone. Not everyone oversees a $600 million operations. How many company directors handle that much ? A person who does and has received all the above is not everyone. In line with Wikipedia standards, to maintain neutrality, I wouldn't want to find a way to get in touch with the owner of this profile to supply me his correspondences so that you will also know that not everyone gets correspondences frequently from world leaders. Lastly, My dear friend, I would be much more disappointed if I realize that you are doing this out of envy. Come on ! Is it not clear already ? Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Wikipedia's guidelines so well if not I would have had a profile. And for the record, this article was not written by the said person who it was written for and neither is he aware of all this attempt to erase his records. Social media is not a credible source for Wikipedia otherwise a visit to his LinkedIn profile and the recommendations from global business and political leaders there will tell you that this Wikipedia article is just a tiny representation of the said person. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and he may not be notable to you. I understand you might want to segregate and have no regards for achievers among people of color but let me make this clear to you friend, a profile like this is an inspiration to over 1 billion people in my continent. Not to the talk of the ones in the diaspora and a couple of other young people (white or not) who have dreams of being successful business executives. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caleb Onyeabor, so far, none of these experienced editors participating in this discussion agree with your understanding of what is required to demonstrate notability on this project. You might consider requesting that this article be moved to Draft space because all signs are that it will be deleted despite all of your arguments to other editors. AFDs are decided by policy and consensus and if this AFD was closed today, the consensus would be to Delete and you don't seem to be listening to the judgment of editors who've been active on Wikipedia for many years. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of them have provided substantial reasons to or substantiated any of their reasons. They kept shifting the goal post. None of them have countered any of the facts. Just mere assumptions and hypocritical stances and even laughable ones because I read one of them talk about how a presidential lifetime achievement award and a conferment of honorary citizenship award to a foreign person is not significant. They have successfully made a mess of the "Years" they have been active here. Afterall, in almost all fields, not everyone who has spent tens of years in a role really know what they are doing. This is another example. If they want to delete it, it is mostly because the admin who nominated this article for deletion does not want to get himself to accept that black people - young black people - can achieve great things. Other factors includes: a touch of envy and then ignorance too. If this was for a white person, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caleb Onyeabor, please strike your comments. What you said is a personal attack and can result in a loss of editing privileges. It also isn't accurate, plenty of articles on people of all nationalities, races and gender face deletion discussions. This is simply a discussion about whether the sources in the article support claims of notability and have nothing to do with the race of the article subject. Your frequent commennts here and reaction to this deletion discussion make me wonder if you have some connection to the article subject that could be considered a conflict-of-interest. If so, you should declare this on your User page and stop editing this article. And again, I encourage you to request this article be draftified because otherwise it is headed towards deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can dratify the article. Thank You. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You saw how they moved from notability to verification to being too praise worthy to whether the awards are significant casting aspersions on the image of the state of Georgia and then they accused me of being related to Mr. Bekele and then they accused Mr. Bekele of being related to the Ambassador of Ethiopia and then one of them even claimed that the awards are on request by a local consulate when a simple fact check would have shown him that Ethiopia has no local consulate in Atlanta. It's hard to see all these and not think what I think. But it is fine. Thank you for your contributions. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you had read the external link you shared, you would have seen this:
"Honorary Citizenship – Foreign Dignitaries, prominent individuals, entertainers, or artists
Appreciation – Outstanding contributions to the City and citizens of Atlanta (including monetary, in-kind donations, cultural contributions or volunteer efforts)
Heroism"
How can you read this and still claim someone who received a honorary citizenship is not notable enough ? from the same link you shared, it showed that people who receive honorary citizenships are foreign dignitaries, PROMINENT individuals, entertainers and artists. How is any of these not prominent ? May I also point you to other links where Presidents of countries received same honor? If it is trivial, will it be given to Presidents ? You just shot yourself on the foot with the "Notable" claim.
Someone who is notable to over 1 billion people is not notable to you because you do not know the person ?
And lastly, that honor was given by the state of Georgia and not the city of Atlanta. Bekele was conferred with honorary citizenship of Georgia as a whole and not of the city of Atlanta as there was no mention of the mayor but there was mention of secretary of state and a legislator. A simple research or fair conscience would have shown you that. 
Anyway, We all know the truth. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11. Wikipedia is not Linkedin. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a fact based platform. Which of the presented facts do you have a problem with ?  Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it uses rather biased words not really suitable for Wikipedia. 2NumForIce (speak|edits) 22:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    can you point me to some biased words in the article and why they are biased? Perhaps that can help going forward. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tagged for CSD G11. I would not normally do so when a discussion is already open, but this is egregious. In the event the speedy is declined, delete for the numerous reasons above. Blatant promo. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments. Non-notable individual seeks vanity article.
@Caleb Onyeabor, if Mr. Bekele is as gifted as you say, I’m sure he’ll get an article when he becomes CEO someday. In the meantime, the editors above have explained the many ways this article fails to meet this site’s requirements for inclusion. They’re just following the site’s rules. We’re not allowed to waive them here.
If you find our rules onerous, we’re just one website among millions, many of them much better suited to promoting Mr. Bekele. I encourage you to check them out.
I’ll also note the the U.S. State of Georgia cheerfully gives out honorary citizenshipships when politely asked, usually by a local consulate in Atlanta. The fact that the Ethiopian ambassador in Washington is also named Bekele may have helped this process.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just not true. I guess the more I try to explain, the more complicated it becomes Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I think I need to make this clear, I am not promoting Mr. Bekele. I don't know him from anywhere. I have never met him. My focus on this platform is to contribute to edits on personalities and issues in the global black community so that there will be a balance. Thank You. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I kept talking about the fallacy of making too many assumptions. Ethiopia doesn't have a local consulate in Atlanta. I just checked now and found out that you are wrong. There is no such thing as local consulate. I hope you realize that you are insulting the state of Georgia with these assumptions by saying their awards are trivial. It is not good. Thank You. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying Bekele is related to the ambassador because they share the same name ? Oh Wow ! And that the State of Georgia, as big as it is, cannot do a simple investigation to differentiate the Bekele who is an overall ambassador to the USA and the Bekele who is a business executive? You mean if I come to the US now and change my name to Obama, the authorities will be so easily deceived to give me honors that are due to Obama ? I hope you take a deep breath sometimes later and reflect on what you have just said. Thank You.  Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DRATIFY: Move to the draft space. It is only fair to move to the draft space perhaps that will provide an opportunity for other editors to verify the claims. I really did a lot of research for this. It is sad it is turning out this way. I will be fine.

  • Speedy delete: Per norm, this are the same issues am dealing with everyday on West African articles, from the issues of PAID pr/puff pieces to actually knowing if a subject is credibly notable. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:GNG. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Wow ! For God sake, is notability an exclusive reserve of the western world ? Do Africans need Western validation to be notable ? Why are we towing this line ? Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are plenty of great articles here about Africans written by Africans, but if you can't figure out what kinds of sources should be used and that it's unacceptable for an encyclopedia article to be so full of fluffy promotional language like "ignited", "coveted", "distinguished", "flourish", "currents of destiny" (LOL, hadn't noticed that before!), "monumental", "effective", "trail of accomplishments", "unwavering determination", "adeptly", "unwavering", "unwavering", "momentous", "esteemed", "enriched", "privileged", "inspiring", etc. etc., then you shouldn't be writing articles here. Jesus, not even actual PR copy is this hyped. (By the way, it's "toeing the line".) Reywas92Talk 15:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the problem is now about grammatical correctness: You may also want to take a look at what I found about what you wrote:
1. The sentence lacks proper punctuation and structure, making it difficult to read.
2. The sentence includes informal language ("LOL") that might not be appropriate for formal writing. I am pretty sure you would fail an examination in English language if you use that again.
3. The phrase "not even actual PR copy is this hyped" could be rephrased for clarity.
4. The sentence ends abruptly with "Jesus," which might not be suitable in this context.
If you'd like, I can help you rewrite the sentence to correct these errors. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was told some years ago that when some white people hear about the achievements of a black person especially in the corporate world, the first thing that comes to their mind is "How was he able to achieve this? Is he not black?"... This is the closest I have seen to the above.
I have been wondering why and Wikipedia provided me an answer here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia
And oh Wow ! It is real.
Now I know better my friend. Now I see it clearly. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking I would go to your profile and find sources from ivy league institutions 😂 Only to discover that most of your articles rely on the usual media sources and even the same Press releases that people like you consider inappropriate. How do you advocate for one rule for the goose and another for the gander ?
I can't believe I have to deal with this here. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget, there is supposed to be an exclamation mark after Jesus not a comma as it is used as an interjection. Thank You. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, my Grandma is Nigerian and I love her so much. Look, the fact is some of these sources are problematic and if you are being honest you will agree, that again is your opinion. I personally have created some African articles which I know are notable. If everyone could afford a paid article on one of the top newspapers in a country then practically everyone or anyone would be on Wikipedia.
You are not being hated on, nether is there anyone being racial. You can try creating other articles on other subjects be it Africa, Europe or western. As an editor with good intentions towards Wikipedia, I hope you do not take this personally, but instead work on another another as advised. Cheers. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you open your mind to knowing about Africa. That you don't know what goes on in the continent or know the prominent personalities in the continent does not mean that They are not there. Perhaps if you do, it can help you easily ascertain whether a subject is notable or not. I thought Wikipedia is a global platform ? Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I see you removed Trainsandotherthings's G11 tag on the article because it's at AFD, but including his comment we have seven votes for a speedy deletion so perhaps you could WP:SNOW close. The above is approaching WP:CIR and even WP:NOTHERE in thinking this is a racial bias issue or even grammar. Reywas92Talk 19:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator has indicated preference to keep with no outstanding !votes for any other outcome. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Moore (soccer)[edit]

Melissa Moore (soccer) (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)

Could not find any more significant coverage other than this, and we cannot base her notability on a single source, failing WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 07:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To access the EBSCOHost article, log in to Wikipedia Library first, then click on the link and it should work. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - impressed by sources that I could not find. They seem to display significant coverage. Keep. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre Enos[edit]

Deidre Enos (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 independent significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Gutteridge[edit]

Natalie Gutteridge (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:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Kofoed[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Some coverage here and here, but not enough significant coverage, and it was WP:ROUTINE declaring that she had been drafted as well. Every college player is not notable because they have some local news about them, and this is a case of that. Nothing to be found about her professional career. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callie Withers[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Some coverage found here, but not enough to justify GNG being passed. A little bit here, but not SIGCOV. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to DAM (band). Duplicated topic. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DAM (Palestinian rap group)[edit]

DAM (Palestinian rap group) (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)

Notability (lack of reliable sources), Original research and Neutralily (the use of phrases like "important voice for the Palestinian resistance movement" and descriptions of Israeli censorship). LusikSnusik (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The current sourcing is already almost entirely international sources, many of them reliable. Dam have also been around for decades - long enough to have entered scholarship, and plenty of books, so there is absolutely no notability issue here, and article quality alone, unless the state of play is truly abominable, is not a good cause for deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Actually, this went in a weird direction when I was working to improve the page only to realize that it is a recent creation that duplicates DAM (band) (where it's actually a level-5 vital topic, so again, no notability question, though the point is now moot). I've now merged the content from this page to that page, so this page can now be redirected there and become a 'redirect with history'. @Zero0000, FYI. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
great to fine a way for this page. I opt for redirect too Mozzcircuit (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: FYI (should have pinged you too) Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect doesn't bother me. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: for the same reasons as Iskander323. I'll also note that the OP is non-extended-confirmed and this article (by OP's own words) is related to ARBPIA. Therefore, per WP:ARBECR, OP is not allowed to even comment here let alone initiate the AfD. Zerotalk 04:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Iskander323. Zerotalk 10:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Kope Formation. North America1000 12:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Godzillus[edit]

Godzillus (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)

Likely permastub of doubtful notability, also currently an orphan. This article was created back in 2012, when at the time the subject was getting attention in the press for being a "mystery fossil that stumps scientists". After that, however, almost nothing new has been written about it since, except a 2016 study by the fossil's discoverer and other scientists discussing its possible true identity. Alternatively to deletion, this article could be merged into Kope Formation instead, since the fossil was discovered from that formation in the first place. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom. I was able to find several articles in RS from the time of discovery, including the CBC and Columbus Dispatch, so it did attract attention. But there hasn't been much since then and doubtful there will be. WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdNAnnoyed (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: A glance at Google Scholar indicates the subject is still being researched and published about, with a new paper coming out every two years. Maybe this material could be incorporated into the article. -- dsprc [talk] 15:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dsprc Careful, some of those papers listed on Google Scholar may be referring to a crustacean with the similiar name "Godzillius", not the subject of this article. Those that are referring to this subject only mention it in passing, with the exception of the article from 2016 I already mentioned which as far as I can see is the only one actually discussing it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. At least these two journals discuss this specific subject (not the similarly-named one): doi:10.2110/palo.2016.028 && doi:10.1080/08912963.2020.1755281. I've zero interest in digging through paleontological research papers that are dryer than a fossil, however. Thus, YMMV on the others. -- dsprc [talk] 16:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom. Having easy access to Meyer et al. (2016) and Retallack and Broz (2021), I looked both of them up. Meyer et al. (2016) is undecided about whether Godzillus is a true fossil or a pseudofossil that is a Microbially induced sedimentary structure. Retallack and Broz (2021) mentions only in passing that Godzillus is regarded to be an a Ediacaran multilobed frond. This paper neither describes nor discusses it any further, except to note that Godzillus is preoccupied by the "orthographic variant Gozillius robustus, a remipede crustacean." It is too soon for Godzillus to have its own Wikipedia article as this time. I would recommend that this article be merged as a paragraph in the Kope Formation.
References:
Meyer, D.L., Brett, C.E., Dattilo, B.F. and Fine, R., 2016. Inverted trilobites: key to complex preservation of an organically textured surface in offshore siliciclastic mudstone and carbonate facies: Kope Formation (upper Ordovician), Kenton County, Kentucky, USA. Palaios, 31(10), pp.453-462.
Retallack, G.J. and Broz, A.P., 2021. Arumberia and other Ediacaran–Cambrian fossils of central Australia. Historical Biology, 33(10), pp.1964-1988.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul H. (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I support the merge. I haven't been able to expand the article.--Auric talk 19:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked extensively using various databases and not been able find any addition publications that discuss Godzillus in addition to Meyer et al. (2016) and Retallack and Broz (2021) Paul H. (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, it 's a no brainer. Clearly it fails GNC and cant survive as a stand alone article. Cinadon36 07:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with what’s been said. Merge. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Topalian[edit]

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

Non-notable former gymnast. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNAST. Let'srun (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found this [29]. Not extenstive. It seems she was the first Armenian women from outside the Soviet Bloc to compete at the Olympics [30] and a brief mention in Life magazine [31]. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Looked in the Library of Congress newspaper archive, nothing found. Tried a NY state newspaper archive, nothing. I don't think she's at GNG. Was never popular enough as an athlete. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A few newspapers published a photo of her with boxers Archie Slaten and Charles Adkins on their way to the Olympics, but I'm having trouble finding much more. pburka (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a note, Topalian was her married name. I added a couple refs that sketch in a few details. Penny Richards (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as additional work has been done on this article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted my close. There's an editor seeking to weigh in, which is sufficient for a 3rd relist if we may achieve consensus and potential further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sources are severely deficient for meeting GNG. In the article: 1 (sports-reference.com): stats Red XN. 2 (The Item): single-sentence photo caption on her and two others Red XN. 3 (Palm Beach Post): wedding anniversary announcement Red XN. 4 (Stuart News): local obituary Red XN. Mentioned in AfD: Us Weekly: single-sentence photo caption Red XN. Armenian Olympians: From Athens to Athens: single sentence in a self-published book Red XN. Life: single-sentence photo caption Red XN. It seems all details on her life are sourced to the primary, non-independent anniversary announcement and obituary, which is not acceptable.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG per JoelleJay's source analysis. I support a redirect if a suitible target can be found, but the two suggested above do not mention Topalian in their articles. Carson Wentz (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. North America1000 12:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aldin Aganovic[edit]

Aldin Aganovic (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)

Tagged as a concern regarding WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC and I can't see any significant coverage cited in any Wikipedia language. My own Austrian search yields only user-generated content and database sources, which are clearly not acceptable per SPORTBASIC. I found Sky Sports, which mentions him once, Lokal Sport, which is just standard match report coverage, and Fan Report, which mentions him only twice. Soccerway suggests that he's been playing at a low level for the last few years, which explains why coverage is hard to find. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ – 2.O.Boxing 11:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Martin (boxing trainer)[edit]

Chris Martin (boxing trainer) (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 GNG. BEFORE search only provided three sources that could be argued as SIGCOV (all written after his death); this is written by the article creator, so doesn't do much to establish notability; this is the strongest, but doesn't really offer much to base an article on (he was well respected, he trained X, people liked him, etc.); this is just a reword of the i.stuff article. All other sources I found were the same kind of passing mentions as what's currently used in the article. – 2.O.Boxing 11:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even though a lot of the articles are just mentions, there is significant amount of articles which i believe meets GN. On top of that A couple things that are missed that significant coverage including [32], [33]. On top of that if you see here [34], you can see how much coverage Martin got surrounding his death and working with David Tua from local newspapers across New Zealand.Bennyaha (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: The depth of coverage provided above isn't the best, but it's a whole lot more than what I found, which leads me to believe there's probably more. Good effort Benny. – 2.O.Boxing 11:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. After all but a month on AFD it's clear there consensus against deleting the page, albeit no consensus as to what precisely to do. I'm not spinning the wheel again. Parties can discuss on the article talk page whether a merge, redirect, or otherwise is appropriate. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Roosevelt (businessman)[edit]

Isaac Roosevelt (businessman) (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 indication this article meets WP:ANYBIO. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as FDR's grandfather it would be nice to keep the page, so hopefully more about his life will be added. He did own the Isaac Roosevelt House, so seemed very successful. The page just needs the reasons why. Maybe this RfD can be mentioned on the FDR talk page and other pages to possibly attract editors who would know more about this Roosevelt. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I added a career section with relevant details to his education, medical career and farm. I think the article should not be deleted but be renamed to "Isaac Roosevelt (physician)" or "Isaac Roosevelt (farmer)" DACC23 (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DACC23: Thanks for the hard work here! Do you have thoughts on which of the new sources meet WP:SIGCOV? I took a look at the references I can access, and they seem to be minor mentions in much larger works. For example, the Chicago Tribune article focuses on the family's larger history and has this to say about Isaac in total: "James' son, another Isaac, preferred a less public life. He studied medicine, married Mary R. Aspinwall, and to them was born James, father-to-be of Franklin Delano." For another, the death notice is two sentences long. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DACC23: Making sure you've seen this ask. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now meets GNC after excellent work by DACC23. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have these numerous ongoing nominations of U.S. presidential relatives at least been listed on their presidential talk pages? Randy Kryn (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roosevelt family. None of the sources have any in depth coverage that I can see. The NYT death announcement is a mere notice not an obituary; and his mentions in the family history pieces by Life and the Chicago Tribune are just a couple of sentences. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three relistings? Should be a no consensus at minimum. As for merging to his house, hopefully "merge" means that almost all of the article will be moved to that page ("merge" is much more than a redirect, it's the merging of two related pages without losing any information or cites). But there seems enough here to meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, there would probably be fewer relistings if we had more editors participating in AFD discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have to make a judgement call and I think on such cases we should lean towards inclusion. The fact that the subject's house may be considered less controversial in terms of notability than its owner seems ridiculous in my opinion, and indeed that article would be something of an orphan (although not technically an orphan article) without this article connecting it to articles for more famous relatives such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Roosevelt family. - Indefensible (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. After a full month on AFD I'm not seeing a consensus here or any realistic prospect of one emerging. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mako (template engine)[edit]

Mako (template engine) (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 to meet WP:GNG. DatGuyTalkContribs 22:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StereoFolic (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'll try to update the article some but beyond what's in the article now and StereoFolic found there's also the books The definitive guide to Pylons, Programming the Semantic Web, Python 2.6 text processing : beginner's guide, which all have significant coverage of Mako. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the examples above are passing guides on how to use the library in the context of another library. There are no high quality sources dedicated to the topic like Ruby on Rails has, there is no in-depth analysis into its function like Webpack has (although the majority of Category:Programming tools may be a discussion for another day). There is no content backed by a high-quality secondary source in this article, and indeed nothing I've found that would provide that content. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that sources here need to meet the level of depth of projects like Rails and Webpack. Those are vastly more complex projects, and there's simply much more to write and learn about them. Templating engines are necessarily pretty simple and almost always embedded in other software, but this does not make them non-notable. StereoFolic (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Python 2.6 Text Processing devotes a full chapter to mako and although it's largely a howto, it also discusses mako itself. I think(?) that both https://turbogears.org/2.0/docs/main/Templates/Mako.html and The Hitchhiker's Guide to Python (Mako is well respected within the Python web community.) also contribute toward notability in that they support mako's place within the Python community, are generally reliable for programming topics, and are more than a trivial mention. I think that Python Interviews, although not contributing to notability very much since it's an interview, would give some more factual details to add to the article as well. I'm also happy I learned doing research for this that mako is/was fairly commonly used as a tool for help generate 3d model and other description files (see Google Scholar results.) Skynxnex (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. From those books above, does it cover Mako in depth? They don't provide basic information, like who wrote the library or its history. They're just how-tos. An attempt to extract the information contained by them should be shot down under WP:NOTHOWTO. Being used in Pylons is WP:NOTINHERITED. I am unconvinced that the blogs and documentation pages are sufficient for GNG. SWinxy (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Did an independent search for sources. SIGCOV in this Person book [35], including evaluation and comparison with Django templates. SIGCOV in this O'Reilly book [36], including some evaluation, and a comparison of syntax with python syntax. Here's a different O'Reilly book with SIGCOV [37], again including evaluation, pointing out some of the drawbacks, as well as a bit of background and comparison to Myghty. From these three sources alone we could write a start class article that explains some of the functionality provided, describes some strengths and drawbacks, compares it to other template engines, and provides some basic background, with zero how-to content. —siroχo 04:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to clarify, the subject meets WP:GNG —siroχo 04:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I debated on closing this as no consensus or relisting and decided to relist, hoping that we can have a little more discussion to avoid a no consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Since this is already covered in the school article this fall's to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viera High School incident[edit]

Viera High School incident (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)

Do we really need an article for every somewhat salacious/scandalous incident which gets some media attention for a few days? WP:NOTNEWS/WP:CRIME intersection. Fram (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's been three days since the incident took place. The Brevard Public School verified the said incident and issued a statement with respect to the Viera High School hazing incident. If you think that this article is significantly less important than other incidental articles in Wikipedia, such as The Trial of George Zimmerman, the Glenbrook North High School "section student hazing incident", Frank Pavone's "section sexual misconduct allegations", or the Ateneo bullying incident, think otherwise. Madutter (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Trial of George Zimmerman, really? Fram (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking about fairness in controversy and consistency, which is broad, let us include the trial of George Zimmerman. Your argument about this particular article being scandalous is argumentative. The Brevard County Sheriff is conducting a thorough investigation into the incident. It is indeed an ongoing case. The article and the evidence that is cited are certainly not hawsyaw. Madutter (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. An article has to be WP:NOTEWORTHY, notable enough that it warrants its own article (be able to stand on its own). If not, content can be added to its more related article. – The Grid (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Madutter, Why wouldn't this be included in the high school article rather than being a stand-alone article? Why relate this to the Trial of George Zimmerman, which had nothing to do with a school nor simulated sex? It seems like a very odd comparison, with the only similarities being crime and Florida. Millions of crimes have occurred in Florida. — Jacona (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section in Viera High School that talks about the incident that I added. In addition, @Fram said that this particular article is scandalous. It is argumentative. The word controversy, by definition, is broad. The point is that the Trial of George Zimmerman, the Ateneo bullying incident, and the Viera High School incident are three different incidents that were considered scandalous. Madutter (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? And Watergate was also considered scandalous. By your reasoning, the existence of articles on Watergate also somehow justify an article on this, right? That's not at all how notability works. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the source of the publication is reliable, independent, and treats the topic in great detail, then yes. Why prolong the creation of the article? Madutter (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME, and possibly WP:RECENT as well. If people are still talking and writing about this in a year then maybe we can reconsider. And personally, I don't think Wikipedia should be a stone wall where every troll, bigot, and bully can have their achievements engraved for all time. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the criteria for a lack of integrity as an editor, let us remove "sections" that are scandalous across all articles in Wikipedia. I agree with you that Wikipedia cannot afford to have trolls. Madutter (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Viera High School#Controversies section. This meets WP:RECENT and might be worthy of it own article in the future, but can be covered as part of the Viera High School stub article currently, as is the hazing incident from Glenbrook North High School. Demt1298 (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the Ateneo bullying incident as an example. Yes, a section was added to the Viera High School that talks about the incident. Madutter (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparing one article to a more-notable one also on a "controversy" does not make the former notable. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is argumentative. Madutter (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Viera High School#Controversies section. As Demt1298 suggests.
On side note would like to suggest Madutter to visit and participate at the sister project Wikinews, as far as Wikipedia is concerned they should reduce edit speed and study various policies other Wikipedians are suggesting. And also save own time by avoiding replying every comment here, that's not likely to benefit much. Bookku (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Delete - Seems to be information that could easily be contained in the school's page. Currently a local news story and does not merit a full article. Is also (as of now) written slightly strangely. A MINOTAUR (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Viera High School#Controversies seems the most appropriate. - Indefensible (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to merge. Maybe it's worth having this article in the future. Madutter (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and per WeirdNAnnoyed's comment. Second choice merge, but the content's already covered in the merge target others are mentioning. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 1 September 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! 06:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Baison[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Zimbabwe women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A total of 9 hits on ProQuest, 2 of which are tagged as duplicates, all of which are simply mentions in lists of squad members. NB, there is a doctoral student and tutor at the University of Pretoria with the same name (Precious (Zhou) Baison), who has published a few articles and papers, but currently also doesn't meet the Wikipedia threshold for notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards named after governors general of Canada[edit]

List of awards named after governors general of Canada (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 very arbitrary list that does not appear to meet WP:NLIST - no source is shown that shows that such a listing exists outside Wikipedia and my BEFORE yielded only forks and mirrors of this article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Lists, and Canada. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think this falls afoul of NLIST due to the clause There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists. This is a complex list: awards limited to those named after governors general. So, in my assessment, first we see the govorners general are each notable, many of the awards are individually notable. As such, this is not indiscriminate. Non-notable or redlinked awards can reasonably be included for completeness of the list. This also fulfills WP:LISTPURP both informational (as it differentiates different types of awards and their individual fields), and navigational as a well-defined index of such awards. —siroχo 06:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Siroxo has succeeded in reading WP:NLIST more carefully than the nominator (who has my sympathies because the writing there is extremely awkward). Discussion of the group by IRS is only "[o]ne accepted reason" for a list to be notable – one needs to think more broadly. The current list fulfills a navigational purpose as explained rather nicely above. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NLIST and WP:SALAT, specifically "Lists that are too specific are also a problem." Why governor generals of Canada only? Is there a secret cabal of award-creating governor-generals of the Canadian persuasion? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I agree with Clarityfiend about SALAT. Specifically, 'A list should be defined so that a reasonable number of readers seek it out.' This is soooo not that. I also find Siroxo's points very persuasive. The tiebreaker for me is that, unlike 90% of the lists I see, this one is at least manageable in scope and has unambiguous SELCRIT. If deletionist arguments prevail (which they might well do), an AtD might be to remove 'Canadian' from the SELCRIT and globalise the list a little. Perhaps something like List of awards named after government officials? Manageable, verifiable, global, and maybe at least a little bit something that 'a reasonable number of readers [might] seek it out.' Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Almost every, if not every, governor general creates at least one award or trophy. So, I think a list of them is useful. However, whether it needs to be a standalone article: I don't lean either way. This has been around for over a decade and nobody's questioned its existence. But, now that someone has, I could see this info being moved to Governor General of Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A valid information list, and many of the awards have their own articles. Dream Focus 00:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW keep and withdrawn by nominator. Everyone agrees that the article should be kept, with me being the sole dissenting opinion, however I see no reason to prolong things when it is clear how it will end. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of organisms named after works of fiction[edit]

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

The list is kind of cool, but nothing in it, nor in my BEFORE, suggests it meets WP:NLIST. Sadly, this seems more like WP:NOTTVTROPES content than encyclopedic. But perhaps someone can save this and find sources to add to the lead that show such a list exists outside Wikipedia? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Biology, and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though this is a complex categorization of sorts, I confirmed it still meets the full criteria of WP:NLIST. A non-exhaustive Google-websearch-only search brings up enough coverage. I didn't check ProQuest, Google Books, or the internet archive.
    1. Smithsonian Magazine [38]
    2. Natural History Museum (London) [39]
    3. Gizmodo [40]
    4. CNET (pre-2020, so reliable) [41]
    5. The Science Times with a focus on Sauron [42]
    6. Comicbook.com, focuses on Star Wars, which is a sublist of this list [43]
I also note that the list is exceedingly well referenced to reliable sources. For what it's worth, there's even more coverage for List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present) —siroχo 06:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo Thank you. Can you add those sources to tha article's lead? I'll withdraw this nom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources and comments of other commenters. May be willing to change votes depending on how discussion goes, but for now it seems to be an alright article. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I understand hesitation towards "fun" Wikipedia articles (I agree Wikipedia should not put "entertainment" as a high priority), this list is also useful and does serve a purpose, as there's no shortage of legitimate academic studies (and simple layperson interest) regarding how we as people interact with pop culture, including in things like science and public policy. List of unusual deaths is another example of a "fun" list that also serves a legitimate purpose in... listing unusual deaths in one location. Both lists also have the privilege of being well-made and well sourced. A MINOTAUR (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This clearly meets WP:LISTN, as a subject discussed in reliable sources in itself. Also, very well-referenced. BD2412 T 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I think this would be a lot better as a WP:List of lists of independently-notable sublists and a prose introduction explaining the overarching topic. The current approach runs the risk of becoming (arguably, already is) WP:INDISCRIMINATE as this is indeed a very common practice. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Sources found by Siroxo show that NLIST is met. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Fürer[edit]

Martin Fürer (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)

Unreferenced and subject simply does not pass WP:BIO. Looked up "Martin Furer" and "Martin Furer + computer scientist" and found 2 or 3 sources stating that "a pair of Australian mathematicians...", otherwise he's just an educator. I considered moving to draftspace, however I think it's futile if there are no reliable sources to help improve the page. shelovesneo (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would the nominator care to comment if the subject's citation record on Scholar has relevance to WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, enough highly cited publications [44] to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. The integer multiplication algorithm is the splashiest (e.g. reported in major mainstream media [45]) but far from the only significant contribution. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. This is a new article and appears to be in good faith, let's give it a chance to breathe before deleting. Professors have several paths to notability. If not draftify, I lean weak keep because we have some signal pointing toward WP:ACADEMIC -- decent citation counts per Google Scholar [46], especially on [47] and [48]. —siroχo 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • weak Keep, decent GS profile for his field, with 7 publication that have 100+ citations this should be good enough to pass WP:PROF#1 even though its a close call. --hroest 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think WP:PROF#C1 is met. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920)#Children. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Gastão of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

Luiz Gastão of Orléans-Braganza (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)

Biography article about a Brazilian person who was a descendant of the then/now-extinct Brazilian royal family. The interwikis seem to have been built on cross-wiki spam. I bring it for community evaluation. Sturm (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Đorđević (photographer)[edit]

Zoran Đorđević (photographer) (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)

Obscure photographer. I haven't been able to find a single secondary source, in English or Serbian, which discusses the subject, so it fails the WP:BASIC criteria guidelines as well as WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. The article content which is unsourced is taken largely from his own website. Griboski (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Podgoršek[edit]

Veronika Podgoršek (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 seem to pass notability under either WP:NPROF or WP:NBASIC. Seems to just run her own practice and do self-promotional things. Mason (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Slovenia. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability apparent anywhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not under WP:PROF -- has some assertion of notability under GNG and WP:NBASIC but the sources are extremely weak (this was the only one that was actually about her and it is not in depth [49]). I have next-to-no linguistic ability to help with this and happy to be persuaded otherwise, but on the face of it, seems to be a too-soon, not enough. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Non-English sources indicate WP:GNG.--A09 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you describe the sources for those who are English speakers? That would be helpful, as my google translating is definitely not capturing anything remotely related to nuance. Mason (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please specify sources that establish GNG since other editors disagree with the assessment of Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the good non-English sources mentioned were never shown. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gayla Leigh Shoemake[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep There are four links found in Gnewspapers using the "find sources" option above, this is the best [50]. I'd say it's a weak pass. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No followup coverage to speak of. Oaktree b's best source is a routine newspaper article announcing her pageant win. I've also nominated fellow Miss Kansas winners Alyssa George and Hannah Wagner. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also an environmental activist in recent years. See https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/04/earth-day-boosters-share-their-message-with-i-5-commuters/ The references about her environmental work aren't enough to establish notability on their own, but they do serve as a reminder that pageant contestants can be notable for other things they do, even if the pageant participation isn't enough. It helps that she has a uncommon surname. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This together with the earlier coverage adds up to a keep. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted (non-admin closure)‎. NotAGenious (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Guillon[edit]

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

This page is a blatantly and explicitly promotional article dedicated to a French-Swiss entrepreneur. It fails WP:GNG with some clear WP:COI concerns. It was created by a WP:SPA in 2018. GuardianH (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus is to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cwej: Down the Middle[edit]

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

Non-notable small press spinoff for a minor book character from 30 years ago. Few citations, all from press releases, Twitter and Facebook, and much discussion of things which may or may not happen in future

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Heavy disagree as someone who wrote the article. There's is an established precedent for including spin-offs such as these, such as Downtime, Sil and the Devil Seeds of Arodor, etc. Plus Cwej is very much not a minor character that was just "from thirty years ago"; he's a full fledged companion that appeared in dozens of novels in the official book range and recently appeared in Big Finish adaptations that came out around 5 or so years ago. And this article includes citations from Associated Press, Goshen News, and KHON-TV, and one of the Twitter citations is due to an endorsement from a well known figure, Katy Manning. Also, Emoteag69, you need to sign your posts with three of "~". KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFF is a strong argument to make here; if you think those subjects are less notable than the one we are discussing here, it may be appropriate to check if they meet the relevant notability guidelines. I'll address the sourcing situation below. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like to add that this anthology has a section featuring Iris Wildthyme, who's had a lot of appearances that make her more than just a "random character". KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The AP news publication is a paid-for press release, that's not independent as required by WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The Goshen News piece doesn't even mention this book. All the social media citations should be disregarded for notability purposes per WP:UGC. That leaves us with pretty much nothing reliable on the article subject; it falls way short of WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Google and ProQuest find nothing to change that. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tbf, the article does mention "a licensed Dr. Who spin-off", which is pretty obviously a reference to Cwej. Also, not to assume bad faith, but I'd like to note that Emoteag69 has only used their account to delete Who related pages (see their history in regards to Time's Champion) and they only had two or three edits before starting the discussion about deleting this page. I'm sure that this is in good faith, but it is kind of suspicious given the lack of edit history. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It‘s not universally obvious that it‘s referring to Cwej, and more importantly, it‘s a far cry from WP:SIGCOV. If you have concerns about the nominator‘s editing behaviors, I would suggest addressing them on their talk page or opening an investigation at WP:SPI; I don‘t think an AfD is the right place for that. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, I have to admit, my fanboy obsession sometimes lets me forget not everyone shares my perception on somethings importance. There's another argument I'd like to put forward though in regards to WP:NBook and that's #5:
"The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."
In this case, though, I'd like to refer to the "author" as Doctor Who the franchise and given how important said franchise is to the world of sci-fi and fantasy it seems like Cwej, even as a less well known part of it, fits the overall "important author/franchise". Because Cwej is officially licensed through all legal channels and it would be a gap in the record of the franchise itself if we deleted the page. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can equate franchise and author in the way that you suggest. If we could, everything ever written within the franchise would be notable, and that seems quite far-fetched. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a fan production I might agree, but this isn't, it's an officially licensed anthology so I don't see how including it would open up the can of worms you're suggesting. It would be nothing out of the ordinary like a fanfilm or something like that, all it would be is another book in the DWU just like the many we already include. And it's not like this isn't notable; Chris Cwej is a full fledged companion and Iris Wildthyme has had a very notable publication history. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're getting at, but none of these are the guideline-based arguments that are usually considered to be relevant at AfD. There's a pretty firm consensus on WP:GNG, with subject-specific alternatives like WP:NBOOK. Arguing that a topic is notable for reasons entirely separate from these criteria is usually unsuccessful. For example, notability is not inherited; a book about a character isn't notable just because the character itself is. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, we really need to hear from more editors in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per Actualcpscm's reasoning. Widespread coverage in secondary sources isn't really there either. GuardianH (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The currently cited sources are a bunch of social media sites, announcements of release (WP:ROUTINE) and self-published materials. Searches online only returned fan sites and book stores. Does not seem to have passed WP:NBOOK. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Stephens[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Here's a second source, 2009 NYT, an album review that includes SIGCOV of the artist including biographical details. [51] —siroχo 05:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep with the new sources given. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Engel[edit]

Joseph Engel (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:GNG and WP:TOOSOON, there are some insufficient sources according to WP:NACTOR guidelines. MirrorPlanet (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and France. MirrorPlanet (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Canadian Screen Award is a top-level national film award of the type that automatically nails WP:NACTOR notability right to the wall. Every single actor listed in the award's article must be a blue link, with no exceptions — across all of Canadian Screen Award for Best Actor, Canadian Screen Award for Best Actress and Canadian Screen Award for Best Lead Performance in a Film, every other actor in all three articles has a standalone article, because it's the type of notable award that makes its winners and nominees inherently notable because they won or were nominated for it. And there are no "insufficient" sources according to NACTOR guidelines; every single footnote in the article comes from a reliable source, two of the sources are substantially about him and his performances, one verifies the award nomination that nails his notability, and while the other two admittedly just verify his presence in supporting roles in earlier films before his "breakout", they're still from reliable sources and the early roles aren't the crux of his notability anyway. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NACTOR The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films as verifiable via footnotes in the article. —siroχo 06:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake[edit]

1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake (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:GNG’s WP:SIGCOV. Article was previously PRODed for this reason, which was challenged with two reasons. First reason was “not all surprising there are so few sources given it was in Algeria” and second reason was “22+ deaths does mean notable”. At the time of this AfD, there is 3 trivial government sources (2 lack much info and are basic information providers, similar to that of primary sources, and 1 is dead) and 2 academic sources. I consider this article to only have 2 reliable, secondary sources, i.e. the 2 academic sources, which technically aren’t actually used as references for the article, as they are used in a Further reading section, and not actual references. Per the general notability guidelines, I do not see any significant coverage of the topic, which seems to actually be confirmed in the PROD challenge. The number of deaths also does not establish/guarantee notability, especially given the lack of reliable secondary sources used, or well not used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weather Event Writer, you need to tag the article with an AFD tag and also, if you haven't done it, inform the article creator of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Done and notification for creator was already done, with the article creator acknowledging it. Thanks for the reminder! Have a wonderful day. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Seems like a good faith misunderstanding of notability guidelines. Per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. I've reviewed the two papers listed in further reading and they both provide in depth SIGCOV of the subject, the papers are entirely about this earthquake. The papers were published in 2004 and 2009, this 1999 event demonstrates WP:PERSISTENCE —siroχo 05:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: Quick question. So with WP:NEXIST, I see what you mean. That said, the articles creator was opposed to using secondary media-references to determine notability. So looking at WP:NEXIST, I see the clause, Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Based on the article creator’s comment, and ignoring the basically primary sources (government ones), the article only has those two academic papers to show notability. If this was something from 80+ years ago, I would say that would be fine, since science wasn’t nearly close to modern times back then. But this is an earthquake from 1999, where new 2023 college graduates were alive at the time. Do you think those two academic papers (and solely those 2 papers, given the creator’s own comments) can truly show the SIGCOV nature of a modern-day earthquake? I’m perfectly fine if your answer is yes, I just wanted to sort of ask/double check, given I think you were unaware of the creator’s comment about really only using those 2 academic papers as sources for the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your question. So first off, philosophically, to quote WP:N, Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. I.e. if we can find the sources, it's not an indiscriminate inclusion. If it's not indiscriminate, I feel very comfortable also considering WP:NOTPAPER.
Now, to be more specific. 1999 Earthquake that took lives and caused damage to structures. Scientific papers 5 years and 10 years later. I feel comfortable saying this has passed a retroactive WP:10YEARTEST (which of course is just an essay).
Now, expanding beyond the scope of your question and moving further away from philosophical to be really pragmatic, a quick proquest search shows brief non-trivial coverage in a 2023 paper [52]. This subject is not the focus of the paper, but it's certainly not forgotten by any means.
And, lastly, to round off more philosophically. The creator's work is much appreciated but they don't WP:OWN the article. Certainly articles about earthquakes need a scientific foundation, but we can use secondary media reporting for non-scientific claims. (Though, generally we do need to be cautious about primary media reporting coming through news sources, (eg reactions), and keep WP:PRIMARY in mind -- claims that come from news media should be synthesized by the source, not just repetition of primary source claims)
I hope this clarifies my thoughts. —siroχo 07:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator is correct in this case. Breaking news coverage is a primary source and using it in articles is bad practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siroxo. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Algeria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a topic is not notable just because the author WP:OWNs the article and won’t add the sources. And 22 deaths will almost always guarentee an article.216.250.210.89 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I honestly don't see a reason to get rid of it. If anything, this is a stub article that can be improved, so it should be treated as such. ChessEric 20:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary sources have been found to exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dayana Calero[edit]

Dayana Calero (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)

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Shan't contest this. Danish Ranger (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as I cannot find anything pointing towards GNG either. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_24

Leave a Reply