Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 03 June 05 >

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Stander

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found a few pieces with a handful of mentions (1, 2, 3), but nothing significant. There are also trivial mentions in Japanese, which you can see by searching ジョシュア・スタンダー. JTtheOG (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Mammolotti

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clearfrienda 💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per ANYBIO. The subject's lengthy body of work (as indicated by IMDB and verified somewhat by applied and presented sources) justifies this article, and provides the barest direct detailing. The many awards also seem to indicate this is more than just another working professional, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural Close‎. Nom is a sock. If someone wants to re-nom sooner than the typical N/C, feel free. Star Mississippi 01:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XML appliance

[edit]
XML appliance (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 relies on one singular source to cover the whole article. Fails WP:ONESOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. I put notability because without the citations we can't say for sure if this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia alone. On WP:ONESOURCE, "If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns.". Clearly, the article has more issues than the ones I presented here. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: You pinged the wrong person. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, sorry. Meant to ping @GoodHue291: ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find a half page article in Networked World. Beyond that I find mentions, particularly in IBM publications, as they appear to have purchased the technology and incorporated it into their software. Those publications, however, do not explain what it is or how it works (the proverbial "black box"), only that it provides accelerated processing of XML data. Lamona (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bit of a weird one. XML was a... bit of a fad back in the day, so there are almost certainly a large volume of sources, complicated by the fact that they would be hard to search, even the online indexed ones, and I would expect a substantial portion to not necessarily be indexed (for example, I don't think Morrison, Scott (2007). "XML appliances simplify SOA". Communications News. Vol. 44, no. 4. Nelson Publishing. p. 24. is). We do have books from the vendors, of course (I think Hines, Bill; Rasmussen, John; Ryan, Jaime; Kapadia, Simon; Brennan, Jim (2008). Hines, Bill (ed.). IBM WebSphere DataPower SOA appliance handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: IBM Press Pearson plc. pp. 6–13. ISBN 978-0-13-714819-6. might be slightly better than the other IBM book at treating the subject more generally) but again, not all of them would be indexed. This Australian Department of Defence report has some coverage, but might be more useful for a list than a prose article: Indrakanti, Sarath (October 2012). Service Oriented Architecture Security Risks and their Mitigation (PDF) (Report). DSTO.. I'd rather have a bit more time before we make a conclusion one way or another. (Also, I found a first-party url to the Network World article above, which might be slightly less annoying than google books: Gaitonde, Sunil (8 December 2003). "XML appliances speed Web services". Network World. Vol. 20, no. 49. IDG Network World. p. 41. ISSN 0887-7661.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Welk

[edit]
Stephan Welk (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 person. While the sources provided all seem to be on the up-and-up, the overwhelming majority of them either are to websites that are now up for sale, return 404 errors, or flat-out can't be connected to. The sources that do properly function are all useless for notability - two are hits in catalogues for a book he wrote and the third is a non-sequitur. A search for sources brings up two Der Spiegel pieces about diplomatic document fraud and nothing else accessible or reliable. I will note that there is a BLP/N thread about this article (which is how I found it) but my putting it up for AfD is due to the sourcing woes and not because of the thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Was any effort made to recover the dead links from the Internet Archive or other archival services? The two cited sources for this individual's influence on the global cocoa market, for example, are recoverable: [4][5], although I can't vouch for the reliability of the media outlet. That is a singular outlet, however; Bayern-Depesche's masthead notes that it is owned by "POPULAREN Network GmbH", so while these sources are independent of the article subject, they're likely not distinct sources for counting such things. Meanwhile, there's definitely Der Spiegel coverage, but some of it has involves a then-ongoing trial. I couldn't quickly determine if there was a conviction, or even if it had concluded. Lubal (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just put the Bayern-Depesche archived link into Google Translate and got borderline-word-salad off of it, but it's comprehensible enough for me to grok it. And it's useless for notability (too sparse). The article itself seems a confused mess, hardly touching on Welk and his actions in favour of descriptions of Sao Tome and Principe and a chocolatier associated with him. Google Translate ignores the Popularen source entirely, so I can't assess that (language barrier). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding anything beyond the sources cited here. Of course, I'm doing a general search based on the search options in the AFD, so am unlikely to find information in less common sources. Of the cited sources (the few that are still live) there are some name checks ("Mitarbeiter der Vertretung", Moneyhouse). There are a very few articles about his diplomatic service (Metosa, Popularen) but these are brief and not in depth. Lamona (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball)

[edit]
Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball) (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 does not appear to be a notable topic, with most references to NPB.jp (the league website) and the Japan Professional Baseball Players Association. Lacking independent reliable sourced coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not speak Japanese. You're going to have to share what these books actually say, so that we can judge if it's in-depth coverage or WP:ROUTINE mentions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A significant amount of each book-length project listed, as implied by my translations of the book titles, plus apparently dozens more books. I'm not sure it's helpful to do a news or books WP:BEFORE search for "支配下登録" (if you did so), see hundreds or thousands of direct hits in both books and newspapers, and discard all of them due to not understanding Japanese. I'm not sure what you want me to describe about all of the sources either; they describe the contents that are described in the article, the history of the system, its implications for players participating in the system, the commemoration ceremonies for being registered, etc. Dekimasuよ! 01:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soho (tribe)

[edit]
Soho (tribe) (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 a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tribe of the Sindhis in the southeastern region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. It got international coverage for being the first tribe in Sindh to elect a woman as its head. I'd say for that alone it is notable. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Clearfrienda. Coverage related to selection of tribe head (woman in this case) is certainly relevant and helps establish the notabability that it is one of the major tribes (that's why media covered). 188.29.25.153 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to me there is enough news coverage shown above here and at the article itself to establish notability of this tribal family name. We all know that many people not only in the Indian subcontinent but all over the world use their tribal names as family names for personal identity. That's not a serious question?...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Steyl

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 04:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Holloway-Smith

[edit]
Bronwyn Holloway-Smith (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:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete due to lack of secondary sourcing. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the sources do not establish notability as per WP:ARTIST. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through all of the sources, and don't see how this could meet WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainAngus (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and WP's and MOS aside, how can "we" not keep the page of someone who created the title "Ghosts in the form of gifts". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Cleanup needed, new refs indicate that greater notability can be established. Right now, it's borderline from what I can ascertain. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As well as being an artist and author, Holloway-Smith has also been raising awareness of our 20th century public art as co-director of Public Art Heritage Aotearoa New Zealand supported by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. I've edited the article to make this aspect of Holloway-Smith's work more visible. In my view, the work across a number of fields is enough to keep. Arnhemcr (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In my view the notability criteria should be WP:ACADEMIC so bibliographical secondary sources are not required. None of the criteria have been met (yet). However, PAHANZ shows thought leadership on public art at a national level that is well above the average professor level. Arnhemcr (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can only cast one vote so I'm striking this one. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. Please could you strike my initial comment instead: it wasn't informed by policy and was made when the PAHANZ references were weaker than they are today. Re-listing the discussion over a week ago has attracted only one more comment. I suggest it's time to make a decision. I'll be doing further work on this article if it is retained. Arnhemcr (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to hurry decision making. You've already asked me on my talk page. Suggest you WP:CHILL. LibStar (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. It seems to me that the discussion has petered out. As you started the discussion, I assumed that you would be involved in bringing it to a conclusion, hence the message to your talk page. Something else that's already chilled is the willingness to further improve this article when it could be deleted. Arnhemcr (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you understand how AfDs work, I can only close it if it's unanimous keep. Which it is not. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chill seems good advice, the RM seems in good shape considering that most of the negative comments came before Arnhemer continues doing good work on the page. Nice work Arnhemer, thanks for putting your attention on the topic. "Ghosts in the form of gifts" (will create and redirect to the nominated page), now there's some good prose. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 01:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Swing Championships

[edit]
Canadian Swing Championships (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 three non-primary sources in this article contain only trivial coverage. A WP:BEFORE search for the event name in English and French turned up nothing usable. (In terms of precedents, there are currently no other articles on individual swing dance events, and I would expect to see one on the more significant International Lindy Hop Championships before this.) Sdkb talk 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Could any valid sources be added to the article? Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Abdullayeva

[edit]
Leyla Abdullayeva (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)
Comment: The other language Wikipedias seem to have a better sourced version of this, with around ten separate sources, however I'm not sure about their quality.
=== Russian language ===
=== Azerbaijani Wikipedia ===
Testeraccount101 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you believe an editor is a sockpuppet, please file a reports at WP:SPI. It's not a matter that can be resolved in a discussion about possibly deleting an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 28 May 2024 (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! 22:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Testeraccount101 on [12], [13], [14], and [15]. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Lyoness. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LYCONET

[edit]
LYCONET (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 notability with reliable sources being primarily about Lyoness. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWorld. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Schueler

[edit]
Carey Schueler (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's only claim to fame is that she was the first woman MLB drafted and thus, they lifted their ban on drafting women, both of which are already mentioned in Women in baseball and her dad's articles. While that may be the case, she never actually played in any MLB or even MiLB game unlike Kelsie Whitmore. Her time in high school and college are not worth mentioning as she was not a star athlete in either cases. The sources backing these claims are either dead links or only mention her briefly and I cannot find enough coverage for her in general to meet WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE anyway. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Besides the fact that it feels wrong to relegate a woman who broke through in a male dominated field to a mention in her male relative's article (in an encyclopedia which already has a gender gap issue), her drafting was very significant, lead to a rule change and also, notably not a publicity stunt but based on a genuine assessment of her talent. She is well covered in literature on the subject (1). The article could certainly use expansion (I'd like to find information on her performance in her senior year season, for instance), but that by itself is not reason to delete it any more than any other stub article. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How you "feel" is not a legit reason to keep an article. I am sure many other editors' personal point of views conflict with the rules here, but they can do nothing about it. Most of those books in that Google search only mention her for a single sentence or paragraph. That is certainly not "well covered." The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first word in my comment is that besides the fact that it feels wrong. I'm also not talking about my personal feelings here, but commenting on how doing things like redirecting a woman's page to her male relative's only enforces systematic gender bias on wikipedia. Many of the books contain only a paragraph mention, but several of them do contain more coverage than that. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Women in baseball per WP:BLP1E. While being the first female drafted in MLB is a big deal, the subject did not sign with, let alone play for, any professional baseball organization. Outside of that, she had a rather unremarkable college basketball career. This person is clearly defined by a single event. She can adequately be covered at the proposed target article, even if information about her high school baseball career is added as suggested by Wasianpower. Frank Anchor 22:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:BLP1E. She was drafted by a team which had her father as general manager, she wasn't signed to a contract, and (per the Chicago Tribune reference) she hadn't played baseball for two years before being drafted. The facts suggest this was a stunt for attention. As there is no substantial coverage of her other than that event, I must vote to redirect. Leaning towards Ron Schueler as the target over Women in baseball, as that article is more likely to contain more than de minimis discussion of her. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose Ron Schueler as a target. Casey Schueler is most notable for being the first woman drafted by MLB, not for being Ron’s daughter. Frank Anchor 00:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with this. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons: First, there is a discrete entry about Carey Schueler in two different baseball encyclopedias: Donald Dewey, Nicholas Acocella, and Jerome Holtzman's The New Biographical History of Baseball: The Classic—Completely Revised (Triumph Books, 2002) and Leslie A. Heaphy and Mel Anthony May's Encyclopedia of Women and Baseball (McFarland & Company, 2006), indicating that in the field of baseball history Schueler is considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in encyclopedias. Second, the second criterion of WP:ANYBIO is has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, and Schueler precipitated the MLB to change a rule about signing contracts for women), an enduring contribution to baseball. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: At least passes general notability with the sources given in the comment above; gender bias here in Wiki is a thing also, there is no point redirecting to her father's article. Publicity stunt or not, the drafting got her attention in the press, so it's enough for wiki notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cầu Diễn station

[edit]
Cầu Diễn station (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)

Zero sources to meet the GNG. The source cited doesn't mention this station. The only others I could find list it as one among several stations [16][17] and say nothing more. No significant coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect this to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge/Redirect. Rather than close as No Consensus, I'm relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per the clear failure of any of the supposed sources to actually demonstrate any substantial coverage of this station. The invocation of HEY is ridiculous as the article is still exactly one sentence, to the point that vote should be ignored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Thanks for identifying the specific Star Wars article that is the redirect target article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani (Star Wars)

[edit]
Juhani (Star Wars) (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)

Source analysis from reception: Of all sources that have been used, Gizmodo [25] is the only sigcov here. [26] Passing mention. [27] A trivia coverage from a listicle. [28] trivia coverage. [29] just a passing mention of Juhani being a lesbian character and can have lesbian relationship with trivia coverage [30] passing mention [31] listicle [32] just talked about her being created as a lesbian and the romance, a bit useful but this and Gizmodo isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. The rest of the sources that I didn't mention aren't reliable/situational and cannot help WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if suggesting a Merge or Redirect, you must supply a target article at the same time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. And, as I said, specify a target article, by linking to the desired page, do not say things like "merge to the character list". Name the specific article. The closer probably doesn't know Star Wars and you don't want them guessing where content should be merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Donkey Kong. I don't know if this IS the best Redirect target article but it seems to be the one most mentioned. Debate about a change can happen outside of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game)

[edit]
Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am procedurally nominating this article for deletion, as it has been WP:BLAR'd multiple times despite clear opposition to it, which its detractors claim is pointless bureaucracy. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept or redirected yet, but I should note that this spin-off series has several mentions in reliable sources, which makes me think it should be put up to a real AfD discussion rather than hidden on a talk page. Despite technically being part of the Donkey Kong series, the "Vs. Mario" sub-series is long-running and its games have gotten large amounts of coverage, making it possibly undue to simply be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (EDIT: See below) I'm trying to follow what's going on here. There's a video game (and its remake) with the same name as the series that it is part of. All of this is fairly well-attested. Currently, the non-disambiguated title is the article for the series, and the game(s) of the same name are at the "(video game)" article. At least one editor is unhappy with this arrangement and wants the main article to be the video game. There has been blanking and redirection attempted to enforce that desire, and so this has ended up here as a "procedural" nomination, despite no one having forwarded a reason why we should actually not have an article for a series with like 7 games in it. Did I miss something about how all this process is intended to work? Lubal (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to also make a case for why it should be kept. For example, an argument you could make is akin to the nominator's, that it's discussed in reliable sources, or that it would be given undue weight if redirected. I don't agree, but those would be arguments you can make. You can also make "per nominator" rationales for keeping, though when tallying results, weighing in with more may be beneficial to the article ultimately being kept. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand how AFD works, just not how this AFD works. What is the actual reason we're here? Even the nomination cites sources suggesting this is a valid topic. Additionally, this is a listicle but it's a list of entirely this series's games, bylined, and from a site with a stated editor and editorial policy. This book about platform games mostly talks about one specific game in the series, but does take time to deem it a "series" and list the then-included games. What is an argument for retention being asked to argue against here, exactly? Lubal (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator opposed a redirect on procedural grounds, my understanding is that the nominator does not want the article deleted and believes that because two users want it to be merged, it should go through AfD. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lubal: The reason we're here is because this is a procedural AfD on behalf of editors who simply wished to soft delete the article without prior discussion, despite WP:BLAR being reserved solely for uncontroversial topics. I believed it deserved a full deletion discussion so that others outside said narrow, stringent group had a chance to gauge its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be entirely clear, it was extremely clearly uncontroversial. There had hardly been any major edits to the article for several years, there was nothing in the article suggesting individual notability. The only reason it could be said to be controversial is because you opposed it, an opposition that did not exist until after the move. BLAR was perfectly appropriate in this case. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the controversy? I don't see any opposition on the talk page or in the recent page history. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've spent way too long reading through the sources and discussion here. What's almost certainly going to happen is: 1) move this article to Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series) over the current redirect, 2) then redirect it to Donkey Kong#Mario vs. Donkey Kong (to preserve history), 3) move Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game) to Mario vs. Donkey Kong over the move-created redirect. That said, I would have structured all of this differently from first principles. Sources are split about whether some of these games (especially the Donkey Kong Country games, but to a lesser extent these as well) represent their own independent series or are merely facets of a larger gorilla gestalt. From an outside observer, it's not immediately clear why a Lemmings-inspired game where you play as Mario is in the same series with a game where you play a rhino-riding monkey, and not all sources treat them as if they are. But some do, and editorially, that's where this went. The result, at least for now, is fine; what we have at AFD right now is effectively a content fork. But while I've come around to endorsing the current structure, I'd also urge those working in this area to be open to the idea that, if content continues to release for this sub-series or whatever you want to call it (or especially if some miracle revives Donkey Kong Country) that it may become reasonable and prudent to treat them somewhat more separately. And with that, this is off my watchlist. Lubal (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The BLAR was entirely valid, and this is definitely an AfD done for bureaucratic purposes. I also find the argument of reliable sources highly questionable considering the nominator cited an article that discusses Mario vs. Donkey Kong as part of the overall Donkey Kong series, which I would argue makes the case for redirecting, not keeping. The fact that the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series is itself, with only one exception, sequels to Donkey Kong for Game Boy and not its own unique thing like Paper Mario or what have you is also very telling to me of how independent it is from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A valid opposition to a BLAR, which is what we have here, means this is a valid AfD discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ was correct to start this disscussion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disputing the validity of the opposition, I'm arguing that the BLAR was valid and the argument for why it was controversial is not there. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Donkey Kong. The original BLAR was an entirely valid move, and the sources cited by the nominator only help support that the sub-subject is perfectly valid to discuss within the context of the main Donkey Kong series article. Additionally I feel this AfD disrupts an ongoing move discussion at Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game), where the nominator had several established editors not only agreeing with the decision but with the assessment that the sources found by Zx only helped to re-affirm the BLAR was the right move. While I assume good faith on the nominator's part, that should have been taken into account, especially as the individual that did the original BLAR has been actively working to improve articles related to this subject on wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per others. This discussion shouldn't even exist, there is one already ongoing where many agree with the BLAR, including me. Even if this series was notable, I believe that it's better off as part of something else as it is uninformative and not necessary as a standalone article. We don't need a useless split off. λ NegativeMP1 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect a move discussion is not how you discuss deleting articles. It's something you do after the discussion is over and the pages have to be organized, rather than a backdoor deletion venue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misstatement of the sequence of events. The article was redirected to Donkey Kong, and then a move discussion due to the redirect. The point being made is that the discussion had several editors making clear that they viewed the series article as not being independently notable from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - series articles aren't necessary when there's little to no content actually about the concept as a series. The article largely just sloppily regurgitates basic outline info from each individual article. We've got the individual articles for that sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect No significant coverage of the series outside of the context of the Donkey Kong franchise itself, given that the games are considered spiritual successors to the DK series. --Masem (t) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I understand the nom's procedural BLAR here. Unfortunately, with the discussion ongoing, I feel this should not have come to AfD until a true outcome was available. Here it just feels like the redirect should have happened regardless. Under normal circumstances, it still would have been a redirect from me. Conyo14 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Donkey Kong. Speaking as the one who originally redirected the article, I've been rewriting Donkey Kong for the past several months and there simply isn't really much to say about Mario vs. Donkey Kong that can't be said at Donkey Kong. What you'd have is little more than a list of entries, a purpose already served by List of Donkey Kong video games, and it's worth noting that there already exists consensus that Donkey Kong Country, a subseries with a far greater claim to notability than Mario vs. Donkey Kong, doesn't need to have an independent article. JOEBRO64 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it's not clear to me what the possible redirect target article is agreed upon here as several different "Donkey Kong" or "Mario" articles are mentioned in editors' opinions. There is agreement on the outcome of having this article Redirected, I just wish it was clearer what it was to be Redirected to. Once that is clear to a closer, this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to redirect to Donkey Kong. I don't see other Mario articles proposed here as redirect targets. --Mika1h (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mario vs. Donkey Kong, shouldn't the series be redirected to the first game of the series since Donkey Kong doesn't have a section for Mario vs. Donkey Kong. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Nominators should offer deletion rationales that demonstrates a proper BEFORE has been done. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoro (tribe)

[edit]
Shoro (tribe) (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 a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. This tribe was involved in a rebellion against the Arghun Dynasty of Sindh. It is clearly relevant, at least for historical reasons. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on your talk page, I do agree that this would have needed a broader preliminary discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, I wouldn't have nominated this for deletion. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 00:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you believe this article should be kept, please name the sources you believe establish GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Labrum

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No inherent notability in the roles she held. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see an agreement that there is sufficient coverage in sources. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freya Jayawardana

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

this subject doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria and can't stand-alone (WP:NLIST) as a musician (WP:MUSIC and WP:BANDMEMBER). May this subject have to be redirect to List of JKT48 members page. Ariandi Lie Let's talk 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are on her specifically and not JKT48 in general. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 15:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starwing Paradox

[edit]
Starwing Paradox (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)

Digging around on this, there's nothing online that I could find but announcements of the game's development and content (mostly press release regurgiation), with zero reaction, review or critical response. The most notable aspect was a tournament being cancelled, but that was due to Yoshiyuki Sadamoto being tied to the game as a character designer and not the game itself. Game required a server connection that's since been shut down, with little commentary about that either. WP:BEFORE just shows no real indication of notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, leaning keep: Does someone know the Japanese sources? I imagine that they'd be the most relevant for determining notability of an only-in-Japan game. In general, JP media tends to be more "fannish" than American video game outlets (lots of open regurgitation of the plot & characters), but I'm seeing some coverage. Famitsu has an overview here (yes, with lots of fannish "here are all the characters" rather than commentary, but see above, it's a Japanese game and it's going to get JP media standards), including links to 6 interviews with the voice actors, staff, and singers. Of which the staff ones are probably the "most" relevant (e.g. [41], [42]). Even if the game flopped, flops are interesting too. I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a case of borderline notability if this was a Sunrise collaboration, Sunrise is a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire: The problem isn't that it was a flop, it's that there was no reaction to the game itself. We still need at least some sort of reception here, even for an arcade game, for the purposes of notability. Even Japanese sources didn't indicate that from what I dug through, just famitsu's interviews and the usual "this is what's in this update!" sort of PR articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There does exist media that is only questionably notable as media (i.e. a game / book / film / etc.) but are notable anyway under GNG. Comes up with canceled games most obviously, which never get reviews but might have eaten up a bunch of time / money at a studio. The whole "tournament canceled" thing seems similar - obviously not relevant as a game, but sourced and covered overall on the topic-as-a-whole.
    • I do agree that the coverage is not very substantial by English-media standards, but it does look like there is at least some coverage. This Famitsu first-look report talks about the game-as-a-game. And I know you've already mentioned it, but there are trivial-ish "Here's what's in this update!" stories floating around, a la the 5 related articles at the end of [43] - all dealing with the work, just in "Hey you can buy this" or "there's a new mode now" form.
    • And to be clear, yeah, I'm not saying that the delete argument is that it was a flop, but the fact it doesn't appear to have done too well is surely the cause for why it's a bit difficult to find sourcing. Don't get me wrong, this is a very borderline notability game, but when the sources are largely not in English but clearly existent, I'd be inclined to kneejerk on the side of keep. SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. In addition to the current sources (of which Siliconera is probably the highest quality site), there's initial announcement reporting from Anime Herald. I'm not familiar with them, but they have a reasonably large set of staff editors? But perhaps more to the point, this was primarily a Japanese release, and so we should be looking for Japanese reportage. Forcing Google to give me what it thinks are Japanese news articles relevant to "星と翼のパラドクス"... reminds me that I do not speak or read Japanese even enough to pretend. But I don't think there has to be very much more there than we're already seeing to drag this over the line. Lubal (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lubal: I mean generally we wait til sources are *found* first instead of assuming, that's kinda the problem. Also the Siliconera and Anime Herald sources aren't giving reception; the only one that is at all is the one Famitsu source Snow found, and that's not enough for an article...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I quite read our notability guidelines to imply that only sources giving explicit reception of the game would contribute to notability. But that aside, I have tried to bumble through the Japanese sources with the help of Google Translate. As a disclaimer, it's going to be exceptionally hard for me to judge the reliability of some of these sources due to the language barrier. This, from ASCII Games seems particularly promising. It's a bylined full-length article about the initial demo reveal of the game, including review elements and details like the arcade game per-play cost that are absent from our current coverage; the site has some sort of editorial review policy but I cannot speak to its overall source quality. This is the online footprint of what appears to be a print magazine with what looks like a two-page spread about the game, although the way this is presented, I can't actually translate the pages themselves. This is a full length interview with the game's creators; I'm aware that there's some contention about to what extent, if any, interviews contribute to crossing inclusion thresholds. I'm confident there are more, as my capacity to search for, read, and evaluate this material is very poor. Lubal (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above and Lubal's sources. There's some sources to work with here. I'm not a huge fan of using previews for Reception, but I think it's better than nothing since the preview version of the game sounds pretty close to the released version. And per above, it really would not surprise me if there exists better sources buried in Japan-only magazines and the like that are difficult to find due to releasing long after the heyday of Japanese arcades and just a year before COVID would wreck the remnants of the arcade market. SnowFire (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow I'll be honest, I really don't like the approach of WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST simply because it's Japan. There's been plenty of times that's been disappointing. I'm not going to fight on it but it's just not a particular route I'm fond of given the track record is all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though no support for deletion has arrived, both !votes say weak keep and the other commenter is only leaning keep. More discussion could help. Even if the article survives AfD, though, it will clearly need improvement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla: To clarify, the commenter "leaning" keep is the same as the second editor !voting weak keep (i.e. me), so there are two other editors chiming in, not three. Also, the article was improved if you check the history and one of the sources included, meaning that there is a Reception section now (when the AFD nomination was written there wasn't one). And while it was a "weak" keep, it's not that weak, to be clear. If I truly had no opinion I wouldn't have !voted, the "weak" part is simply acknowledging that the topic is borderline. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 01:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Afrika

[edit]
Out of Afrika (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 extensive third-party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)

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

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [44], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [45]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
  • Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian writer

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

It is obvious writers from one specific country may write in any language other than their national one. This article has no purpose of existing nor potential for expansion. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have categories for such things, no need for a microstubby list with three entries and actually no entry primarily connected with the topic itself. A09|(talk) 07:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cribl

[edit]
Cribl (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 like it actually meets NORG. Coverage is all your typical SERIESA stuff. History is also a little suspicious TBH but that's mostly secondary to the routineness of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - In a whopping three months of editing (just acknowledging that I'm a newer editor, so take this opinion for what it's worth), I've already seen enough of similar type marketing articles roll through suggested edits. I believe almost all of the coverage listed belongs to the category of trivial WP:ORGTRIV and WP:FORBESCON, and I've seen other editors describe these kinds of pages as "cruft." That said, the weakness in my comment relates to Bloomberg Law article about a lawsuit it lost and won (only had to pay $1). I don't believe that raises it to notable, but it's something and makes me a little hesitant...so weak delete it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertenMerten (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

[edit]
Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (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)

Continuing the assault on the Anglo-Australian cricket fanfict. Full of cruft. Duplicated infoboxes. Similar articles have been deleted before, and a large amount are currently almost deleted here (deleted on 11 June 2024). Before voting for merge, remember a lot of these articles is already on the main biography ones. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bill Brown with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ian Johnson with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arthur Morris with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ricky Ponting with the Australian cricket team in India in 2008–09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mitchell Johnson with the Australian cricket team in the 2013–14 Ashes series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Removed redirects

Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural comment Maybe should have taken a little more time--many of the above are redirects which should go to WP:RFD instead. --Finngall talk 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since its a lot of similar articles, I will wait till they are deleted (if consensus is reached) and then list them there Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'll repeat what I said at the Neil Harvey (in this tour) AfD, that holds true for each article here: "We have an article about every international match played on this tour; we have an article about the series; one about the Australian team playing the series; and one about the player. Any information that doesn't already belong in those three articles is, IMHO, too much detail to be covered in an encyclopedia: it is also essentially prosified statistics that we're not a database [...] While these articles are clearly a labor of love, at some point we need to recognize that not every incident in a month-long cricket tour is worth incorporating into Wikipedia. It may be the most famous example of an Ashes series, but there's been one approximately every two years for over a century, and it's hard to argue that similar articles could not be written about every player in the more recent ones, relying on online news coverage. Not every verifiable detail is encyclopedic. I'm inclined to believe the international matches, and the tour itself, deserve articles, but it's hard to justify coverage beyond that." Aside: I suggest purging the redirects from the list now, as there will most certainly be procedural back-and-forth that will muddy the waters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will get to it but I feel that if this discussion goes through theres also no need for the redirects. They are dead weight. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - There is no doubt that the quality of writing in these articles is good and someone (or a few someones) spent a great deal of time. However, the amount of duplicated info across this series of articles is staggering. How everyone in the peer review process failed to come to the obvious conclusion that this is an unnecessary content fork truly boggles my mind. – PeeJay 10:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously the Ricky Ponting and Mitchell Johnson articles should be merged to their respective tour articles (I missed them at the bottom of the list). – PeeJay 10:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of content is already in the main articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt it. My !vote is a call for any relevant content not already in the main articles to be moved there, and then for these articles to be deleted. – PeeJay 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You specified merge all and didnt mention delete. Also for the peer reviews, they were reviewed in the 2000s. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't merge AND delete, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Christian75 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment 2 - the Keith Miller 1948 article is a featured article and a merge proposal less than two months ago reached a consensus to merge to the main article which has yet to be actioned. A merge discussion regarding the Ricky Ponting 2008 article was started in March 2024 and remains open. JP (Talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all. Well written fancruft. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, and I feel the 1948 series matches should also be examined for excessive detail/overlap and possible merging: not only is there an article for the overall tour and a separate one for the 1948 Ashes series (so, much of the detail in the tour article about the Ashes matches could be trimmed) but at present, as mentioned above, there are 5 separate articles for each of the 5 test matches. For context, there are only 11 articles in the Category:Test cricket matches, so over the entire history of test cricket, only 6 matches outside this tour have been deemed of sufficient interest for a Wikipedia article. Or to put it another way, the creators of the 1948 stuff were given far too much free rein over their favourite subject; while the 'Players with' articles are possibly a unique level of excess site-wide, certainly in terms of a fairly brief sporting event, I think the match articles are worthy of nomination too. Standards are different today, but it doesn't say much for the FA / GA process back in the 2000s when so many of these sailed through the reviews based on the high quality of the writing and formatting without the brakes being applied and saying 'wait a minute, X Y and Z player on tour nominations share a lot with X Y and Z player biography nominations and A, B and C test match nominations, which are also covered in depth by G series and H tour articles', it's not like these are totally niche and barely got any eyes on them. The main page of 2009/2010 must have had an article from this topic almost literally once a week. Some of them even got nominated for deletion at that same time, but amazingly the decision (probably involving editors who are still active in positions of respected seniority 15 years later, hopefully not with the same views on what is an appropriate level of coverage) was that they should not only be kept but promoted, basically in multiple instances of virtually the same information. Crowsus (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom and above. Cos (X + Z) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as per nom. Also fine with just redirecting and someone can do the merge later, if that would be preferred to just leaving merge tags on these for ages. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Kuria

[edit]
Douglas Kuria (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 Kenyan businessman. None of the coverage is WP:SIGCOV of him, it's all focused on the companies he works for or on his father, from whom notability cannot be WP:INHERITED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page meets WP:INHERITED criteria by Family Tree. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of WP:INHERITED is that notability is not inherited from notable family members. It must be independently proven by significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read there that "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." I am trying to understand what this can do with Douglas Kuria. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is on a page labeled "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions." The full section is about why the idea you quoted is incorrect. All of the coverage that mentions Kuria is really about his companies or his father, and he cannot inherit their notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Is moving the page into draft space and re-writing it again allowed at this stage? 12eeWikiUser (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be unilaterally moved by a new page reviewer once this much time has passed since creation, but you can formally request it by typing "draftify" in bold. I will agree to that alternative as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Sauthoff

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

The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh Bhakt

[edit]
Andh Bhakt (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 . च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh bhakt is a word getting very popular nowadays. Lot of People know about it and some don't . Wikipedia is a online encyclopedia where people know information about lots for matter. And the popular trending matter should be in Wikipedia . Therealbey (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Family of Donald Trump#Barron Trump. Arguments in favor of retaining this article discussed the extent of the coverage that the subject has received, while arguments in favor of redirection largely focused on the nature of that coverage as relevant to the notability of the subject's father, rather than the subject himself. We do not have a policy that directly addresses this somewhat unusual dilemma. BLP1E may not apply on its face, however, that policy reflects that the community has supported the consideration of privacy concerns in deletion discussions. Here, there is a consensus to redirect the article for this reason. I have protected the redirect, consistent with our policy on repeatedly recreated articles. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Trump

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Barron Trump (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)

Opening this discussion to coalesce discussions of redirecting this article back to its previous target. This is not an implicit support for redirection or deletion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and salt. This is a private person who receives coverage only because various media cover his father extremely heavily. That doesn't make this person notable. Are any of these sources sigcov in RS, or are all RS mentions basically snippets in articles about his father or mother? Valereee (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Trump appears to meet WP:GNG's five points and WP:NBIO. The article cites two dozen references directly mentioning Trump's name in the headline, all from sources that are "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline. Trump's association with his father is not the only reason that this article exists. The question remains on whether or not Trump has a claim of significance. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was mentioned as late as last month as a potential political candidate, that's more than enough sustained coverage from the time Trump was in office til now to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think claims of significance are only for CSD A7. I think any coverage in reliable sources meets the CCS / A7 threshold. So this AFD should probably focus on notability, not CCS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources 16, 19, 33, 34, 35 are directly about him. He's the president's son, so will get coverage. GNG is easily met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer Val's question, there are some sources specifically about him, but as far as I can tell they all fall into one of two categories: 1) very basic updates on his life, like that he entered the development program for an MLS team (note: not a GNG/NATHLETE pass on its own), or 2) discussion of how private his life has been kept and of pop-culture speculation about him. In a way, this is a weird case where something like Barron Trump in popular culture is conceivably notable (although it would present serious BLP issues), but the guy himself isn't. There's also the privacy angle to consider. As far as I can tell from the article, he's only voluntarily done press once in his life, an interview when he was 10. Since then, Melania has kept him away from the spotlight as much as possible. He is, despite his surname, much more a private citizen than a public one, and as a BLP matter, if there is any question about notability here, we err on the side of exclusion. So I agree, restore redirect. Any major details in the current article that isn't in Family of Donald Trump § Third marriage can be selectively merged. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect Just because they aged out of WP:MINOR does not award them an article when they age out, and for now they don't warrant anything regarding outside gossip blogs for an article. Nate • (chatter) 20:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#6, with absolutely no prejudice against renomination when this is off the main page.--Launchballer 20:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested at WP:ERRORS that either the hook be pulled or this be SK'd. If this is SK'd and re-AfD'd, I would suggest just copy-pasting the existing !votes into the next AfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now off the main page.--Launchballer 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've worked my way through the DYK history, and it was proposed by ElijahPepe. Particulary odd, as this was something that happened at age 11. Barron was not kept on for any successive later age teams. A young child who failed promotion. Failure is not something usually promoted at DYK.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK's main focus is getting as many things as thry can onto the main page. Everything else is secondary. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on this one. JoeK2033 (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. An interesting case. We certainly have articles on people with much less press coverage, and he appears to tick many of the GNG boxes. However, he also ticks many of the WP:LOWPROFILE boxes, and it's pretty obvious that the press coverage he's received is derived from his father's notability. There is a privacy interest here. It looks like the article was rebuilt with this edit which gave as part of the rationale the announcement this morning that he will be an at-large delegate - but it looks like he declined that opportunity shortly after so not a lot has changed. What we have are a collection of gossipy bio-snippets - reliably sourced, but a poor foundation for notability, and really not that interesting as an encyclopedia article. I don't see any benefit to having this as a standalone article when all the relevant information can have a perfectly good home at Family_of_Donald_Trump#Third_marriage. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect Other than them no longer being a child, what makes this article notable as a standalone when this information better sits in the Family of DJT article? I certainly don't see it. Turini2 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect This is an unusual case of inherited notability, but not a particularly strange one to me. Barron has received all the press he has received because of his father. No one would be commenting on him at all otherwise; we don't have many articles on random rich children of politicians, and we intrinsically seem to understand with the example of the Obamas that proximity to news coverage, and the fact that news orgs would talk about them, wasn't enough reason to create pages that, especially in this case, are a trainwreck and should never have gotten on the front page. There's no way to make a good article out of this, because there aren't good sources to start with. (Seriously, this article decided a story called "Barron Trump, 10, looked extremely sleepy during his father’s victory speech" was worth including?) It's essentially akin to a BLP1E subject. Also, speedy keeps because it makes Wikipedia look bad (due to our own stupidity) has and always will be a terrible reason to keep articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect per WP:NOPAGE and BLP concerns; also essentially an application of WP:NOTINHERITED. Would recommend ignoring WP:SK#6 due to clear emerging consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are plenty of sources that analyze the subject independent of (and budding independence from) his father, and due to Trump being married so often, redirecting to family is not as easy an option as it seems to have been with Obama's kids. Note also the 230k+ pageviews in the last 30 days. Abductive (reasoning) 20:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect (and SALT per others) fails WP:NOPAGE; the 'independent' sources are majoritively on adjacent issues. ——Serial Number 54129 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent" means "not under the control" of the subject. Also, a bio can't fail WP:ANYBIO. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A biography can't fail a guideline regarding biographies? Thats an... interesting interpretation of otherwise plain English. Please read before you shovel; it's a pretty basic requirement per BLP. ——Serial Number 54129 21:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO is inclusive, it says topics that pass it are guaranteed to be notable. You seem to be allowing your biases to do your thinking. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:ANYBIO doesn't say that. The introduction to the criteria says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Schazjmd (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When clicked on, WP:ANYBIO leads to the list of three points, which are clearly purely inclusive. The quote about applies to that list and "Academics" and "Creative professionals". So, debatable. But i doubt many editors use the fact that a person has not "received a well-known and significant award" to argue for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 22:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean "fails WP:BASIC" instead of "fails WP:ANYBIO"? The former talks about independence of sources and is a re-statement of WP:GNG but for the WP:NBIO page. The latter is an WP:SNG that lets very specific situations skip GNG and auto qualify, such as being a Medal of Honor recipient or being included in the Dictionary of National Biography. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect and protect it. No independent notability. Also I note that the hiding of the AfD notice is an inappropriate restraint of discussion. If this discussion is urgent enough for BLP reasons—as I believe it is—to override the usual prohibition on AfDing an article currently on the Main Page, then the blurb should be pulled from DYK, as is usually done when it's discovered that the grounds for AfDing an article featured in one of the Main Page blocks are urgent enough not to wait. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, looking at the first two noms, we have a contortionist closing argument that somehow makes a distinction between the "particularly high status ... Prince George or Princess Charlotte of Cambridge" and Barron Trump, and then a shameful example of vote counting(!) by the second closing "admin". Abductive (reasoning) 22:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. An article that should never have been created. Barron Trump has no independent notability whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating individual achievement with independent, significant coverage. We don't care about achievement — if you wanna go OTHERSTUFF, I'd argue there are a whole bunch of articles about British royals who haven't done jack other than have the right pedigree. What matters is coverage. Ask yourself this: is a random user likely to have a question about Barron Trump and to come to WP for an answer? Of course they are. They don't want to be redirected to a 40 page biography of Donald Trump. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect and protect. Not protecting is how the article reached this state, the creator was advised against the article at least a couple times despite previous AFDs. Soni (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was advised after the article was created. Tamzin was the only one who raised such objections despite mentioning this article with other people and bringing it to GAN. One person's word is not going to force a redirect. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely recall another conversation much before Tamzins, but I might be mistaken here. Regardless, I don't agree with your last sentence because one person's word can undo a redirect apparently. And I do think that's a waste of community time if it requires an AFD or similar to restore it to redirect state each time. So, I'd still want protection.
No comment on GA/GAN and how you handle discussions with others, because I have opinions on them unrelated to this AFD. Articles with questionable notability can pass DYK, as this one proves (even if we decide to keep it) Soni (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: interesting. While there are BLP concerns, there are sources specifically about Barron, and IMO there is far too much info for a NOPAGE redirect. Cheers, Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 01:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is non-trivial coverage about him in multiple reliable sources and he is an adult. Bruxton (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect again. The coverage barely mentions him without the context of his father, even the sources linked above provide a weak claim. Mere speculation about his life doens't prove notability. Fails WP:GNG, and the sources provided seem to be WP:NINHERITED - even with being nominated as a delegate (before declining), he was only notable for that because of his parentage, and I don't think being a delegate is a claim to notability in itself.. Mdann52 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is already an adult, and the article can be improved so it pays more attention to him as a person.--Janitoalevic (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much of the BLP violations and fluff has already been removed, and there are sources specifically about Barron, meeting GNG. We shouldn't be judging the reason why sources gave significant coverage to Barron, the fact is that reliable and independent sources did so. WP:NOTINHERITED is for AfD arguments, not reasons for sources giving coverage. Skyshiftertalk 11:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect, and salt. First, I think recreating the page was technically against guidelines/policy; in theory, I think you're supposed to go to DRV before recreating an article deleted (twice!) by consensus. But that's probably not strictly observed all the time, so ok. Second, and more importantly, this is (a) a teenager whose (b) privacy is desired and who (c) has not yet done anything noteworthy aside from being born. WP:MINOR is not an obstacle to be waited out, it is a philosophy that doesn't dissolve on an 18th birthday. I think recreation should be prevented until there is a consensus somewhere that overrides previous AFD's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I support redirection (see below), I want to point out a large error in your argument. DRV is not a requirement to recreate a page that was not salted, especially when the page was redirected eight years ago and there are presumably many additional references about him than there were at that time. Frank Anchor 13:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a "large" error; as I said, my more important argument was my second argument. I'll defer to your experience with recreating previously deleted pages, I'm sure you have more experience with page deletion norms than I do. It just seems odd. For most processes on WP, consensus can certainly change, but you generally need a new consensus to override it, not just one person who disagrees. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold recreations are acceptable as long as they are not duplicates of a prior version and notability can reasonably be argued to have changed; WP:G4 would not apply in those cases. —Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, I greatly respect you and I hope you don't see this as an attack on you - but do you have sources for Barron himself wanting privacy? I've seen many sources that talk about his mother keeping him private while his father was president - but I have yet to see a source that actually has in Barron's own words that he wants to be a private individual. Our guidelines on figures who desire privacy may apply and would lead me to consider that Barron shouldn't be discussed in depth (in his own article or as a section in another article), but generally speaking that would only apply if he has intended to keep his own privacy - not simply that his mother kept him private as a minor. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't an attack, no worries. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect an actual public source that he wants privacy. He's an 18 year old kid, and they - even famous ones - are not in the habit of publicly announcing they want privacy. I doubt that such a source exists, but that doesn't weaken my assumption, barring any evidence to the contrary, that there's still an expectation of privacy when you've 18, and you've never done anything that would lead anyone to even assume the opposite. Even this delegate stuff is not something he sought out, it's something that others - in an attempt to suck up even more to his dad - tried to force upon him, and my understanding is he declined. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm torn - he did decline the invitation, but he didn't do it (publicly) for reasons of privacy/etc, but because of "prior commitments". To me, that would've been a perfect opportunity for him to express if he did not wish to be covered in the media this way. And that statement didn't even come from him, but from the office of Melania. You're right that we don't really have anything from him at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outright deletion is a terrible option. The son of a president is, at the very least, a highly likely search term. Frank Anchor 13:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this AfD from DYK because I do some hook promoting there and this article was featured at DYK. I am rather surprised to see so many editors calling for a redirect when we have so much coverage of this person independent of his famous father. Making redirect arguments like teenage child of an extremely divisive living person is really not a good argument. This makes it seem like it is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Or he is a private person, that too is not an argument based in our guides. The reason this keeps getting recreated is because he is notable. I hope the closer considers our N guidelines and policies. and NEXIST. Looks like roughly 6k people view the article daily, so they come to us for facts and we say??? NOPAGE? I hope the closer considers that the arguments seem to be trying to invalidate our notability guide like a form of jury nullification? I am traveling but will watch this AfD because I find this extremely puzzling. Lightburst (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: I've read the article again and still can't see what's notable about Barron Trump. He has famous parents for sure but that doesn't establish personal notabilty. People are interested in him but people are interested in all sorts of people which does not make them notable in themselves. Barron Trump in popular culture is an interesting idea, though, as it addresses the problem of popularity vs notability nicely. Just what makes Barron notable? Gossip? WP:NOTGOSSIP. His possible future? WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I'll add that WP:BLP needs to followed here at all times, though that doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment — Iadmc♫talk  07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that he fails the WP:ANYBIO test, too — Iadmc♫talk  07:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect - actively WP:LPI, notability not inherited, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect, Trump's notability is due to his parents. He is not independently notable himself. I'm not sure I would support a salt in this case because it is still very possible that he could become notable in the future. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect, BLP always overrides weak notability claims and this is no exception. JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: While he does have some coverage through a handful of sources, he has no independent notability beyond merely being the son of a president. This is different from the first three Trump children, who are all independently notable in their own rights, so I do not find the argument conflating them convincing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - I'll give the same response I gave at BLPN. So many BLP issues. This article should be speedily deleted, and the earth salted so it never pops up again. This is one of the reasons I decided to stay with Wikipedia so long ago. It's this sort of mob-mentality where people think it's ok to go after someone's child to get at them. This is why the left scares the bejesus out of me, because you never see these tactics coming from the right[disputed – discuss]. Personally, I have no love for Donald Trump. (I think he's a complete moron, and every time he speaks he removes all doubt. The only reason he's so popular with the right-wing nutjobs is because he's even more popular with the left-wing nutjobs; they are in love with their hatred of him. It's a case of "the enemy of my enemy...") But going after someone's family --and especially children-- is stepping way too far across the line. Definitely nuke it. Zaereth (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect per the arguments made above. The subject has barely been involved in press unrelated to his father, and, from what it seems, sources about him simply discuss his mystique. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect per all above. There is nothing of encyclopedic worth lost by people only reading the material present in Family of Donald Trump#Third marriage.
What extra stuff does this page have? He watched an eclipse from the balcony of his house? So did I. He brought his friends home once? So did I. He helps his boomer father open his computer? So do I. What is notable in all this? And I don't think we should be covering somewhat creepy Japanese stans making fanfics of him. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 07:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and salt cos we keep having this conversation again and again despite no material change in Barron's notability. This is the 3rd nomination. Enough is enough. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 05:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, salt for a finite duration (I would suggest one year but at a minimum through the current election cycle) and ECP protect after that. Attempts to recreate this article (should the subject become more notable in his own right) during this time go through DRV or WP:AFC. Frank Anchor 12:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A 100% notable biographical topic. Let's try to be an encyclopedia providing information for those that seek it rather than knowledge gatekeepers. That the article is terrible is irrelevant. Passes GNG. Easily. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone on WPO asked my about my opinion here. This is MILES over the GNG bar. Here are three, significant, independently published pieces of coverage of presumed reliability from last month alone. Honestly, only IDONTLIKEIT or a profound misunderstanding of GNG can lead anyone to anything other than a Keep perspective, I think...
• People magazine, May 20, 2024, "Barron Trump: Everything to Know About Donald Trump's Youngest Son."
https://people.com/all-about-barron-trump-donald-trump-son-7507615
• The Tennessean, May 18, 2024, "Barron Trump graduates: What will Donald Trump's youngest son do now?"
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2024/05/18/barron-trump-graduates-donald-melania-show-up-at-oxbridge-ceremony/73734727007/
• San Diego Union-Tribune, May 8, 2024, "Barron Trump, 18, to make political debut as Florida delegate to the Republican convention"
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/story/2024-05-08/barron-trump-18-to-make-political-debut-as-florida-delegate-to-the-republican-convention
Thanks, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely he passes GNG. But as WP:N says, This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Which is, I think, the right call here, given that so far, there isn’t really anything in reliable source coverage that can’t be covered in the parent article (no pun intended.) 28bytes (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously arguing that some rando in a bar wondering how old Barron Trump is is gonna come to WP for an answer and getting the quick result they seek and being happy being redirected to a contentious 40-page article on his father? That's a boggling argument to trash-can GNG. GNG is an objective standard for notability not achievement. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect could always be to the less contentious article about his mother, if that's your worry. Thanks, @28bytes:, for providing the actual policy rationale for what I deeply felt was right in this case. It is within policy to handle a notable topic by folding it into a parent article. For an 18 year old kid who hasn't really done anything, this seems the perfect solution. Slightly off topic, I feel much better about myself arguing for the "10 year old child with no other resources available" (or similar, I can't seem to find it now. was it a slightly different stereotype?) we used to see all the time. "Some rando in a bar" is less inspiring. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: The redirect is not to the contentious 40-page article Donald Trump, but rather to the far smaller and rather straightforward Family of Donald Trump#Third marriage. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 04:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, someone looking up his age on Google is going to find a Knowledge Graph served up with stuff from Wikidata. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 04:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOPAGE and the other redirect arguments above. Doesn't matter if he passes WP:GNG or not. Information about this kid is better placed in an article about his family. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and salt. DRV should be required before it's split off again. Levivich (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per WP:NOPAGE, Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page, and seems obvious that this is one of those cases. --JBL (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per WP:BLP, WP:NOTINHERITED, and because of the quality of the material. I cannot, apparently, say this enough: Sourcing alone is not notability. And reading through the article, the material is stuff which for the most part could be written about any recent high school grad. If he weren't the former president's son, nobody would know. He has no more history than I do, or than had the acquaintance of mine who happens to be Jay Gould's great*granddaughter. The only interest in him derives from his father. And besides that, it's just simple BLP courtesy not to make a big deal out of him washing out of youth sports (as most of us did), even if he had already gone off to college. As far as looking up his age, I'm thinking that (a) "none of your business" is a valid response, and (b) it's entirely appropriate that googling "how old is barron trump -wikipedia" produces as its first result the answer, from the New York Post. In the end, this fails the "why do we care?" test in a big way, since "because we're nosy about famous people's kids" is (a) the actual answer, (b) not satisfying GNG, and (c) baldly in contravention of BLP's letter and spirit. Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect and salt Barron Trump is absolutely notable. However, as JayBeeEll pointed out, notability "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page", and I'm not seeing a strong case to do so from those supporting. It should've been a huge red flag that the only topics that could be covered were "Early life and education", "Public image and privacy", and "Personal life". hinnk (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect and salt Hasn't done anything with his life yet except look tall. We can have this discussion again if he goes into politics. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on SALT While one may consider this article TOO SOON, just as Trump Père himself became notable there is a fairly good chance that Barron will do so also. Nothing should prevent the creation of an article in the future if he does things that are noteworthy. A time-limited block would make sense, but not a permanent salt. Lamona (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Salting doesn't mean the article can never be created. It just means the article needs consensus, likely at WP:DRV, before it can be created again. The first AFD had a dozen participants, 2nd AFD had over 60, and now this AFD is at over 50 participants. Yet creating the current version just needed one editor to decide to do so.
    Rather than the article inevitably getting created again after whatever time period we choose expires, I'd personally prefer requiring consensus. Otherwise the article will probably come back to AFD 4, for even more editors to !vote on a pseudo-RFC AFD Soni (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The reason to require consensus before it can be recreated is because it's a BLP so it's important we not screw this up. Levivich (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect and liberally pour out the Morton's. The sparse content that's about him rarely is even about him other than the information that he exists. The coverage of him is so shallow that to allow this article to remain is the equivalent of saying, "Yes, notability is inherited." As for the comment about helping out the rando in the bar find information about Trump, since I don't believe Barron *is* notable, I care no more about assisting their search for information on him any more than if they wanted to know biographical information about the bartender with the Blue Öyster Cult that poured their beer 15 minutes prior. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect and salt, per 28bytes, Floquenbeam, and Levivich among others. DFlhb (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect not a public figure, the content can be handled at the family article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect and salt: Barron Trump is not inherently notable (WP:NOTINHERITED) and I feel this article probably goes a bit beyond the reasonable expectations of privacy. Xii Xii 02:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect is appropriate for minor children of presidents and children of less-prominent politicians. It is inappropriate for an adult child of an ex-president and presidential nominee who is now the topic of independent reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordgette (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. In the first place, having come of legal age less than three months ago, the closest thing he's done to an adult thing is choose a college, and one can only guess the degree to which it was a decision independent of his parents. Second, it's not uncommon for children of the famous to lack their own articles if they don't have independent notability. Third, I see no evidence of any "independent reporting", which is hardly surprising for someone whose only "independent" accomplishment is to graduate high school less than a month ago. There is no reporting on him which isn't a direct function of him being "son of". And for the umpteenth time, your argument reeks of "now he's fair game", which is the antithesis of BLP sensitivity. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some sort of policy I don't know about, why have multiple people made reference to becoming an adult? Super weird to see this in a WP:BLP discussion, we don't have 18th birthday countdowns before starting an article like a bunch of shock jocks ogling a teen star. hinnk (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect Subject is not notable on their own merits. We should be not deviate from policy on this matter, and we need stronger BLP standards. Abzeronow (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but at a minimum, don't salt. Barron Trump has been nominated for being a delegate to a major political party's convention, and whether or not he chooses to pursue politics at all does not change the fact there is enough reporting about him as a person to merit GNG passing. I notice the arguments a la WP:NOPAGE that are being made, however, none of them actually seem to address the reasons given to not provide a standalone page. Donald Trump's life/article(s) do give context, yes, but that's not what NOPAGE says - NOPAGE specifically addresses when a topic cannot be addressed on its own without the context. The exact phrase used is needed context - and there is no "needed" context for Barron's notability. The relevant context can be addressed through the typical editorial process through wikilinks to articles providing such context, and/or hatnotes to articles about Donald Trump or the political processes involved. However, that context is not needed for his notability as a person. It is important to remember that as an encyclopedia we do not determine what is notable on our own - we follow what reliable sources have and are likely to consider independently notable. And the current breadth of independent coverage of Barron is such that the reliable sources are deeming him independently notable - be it because they think he is not his father, or because he is notable on his own. As such, I vehemently oppose salting the article if it is redirected, because there is no reason it should be prevented from coming to exist naturally when reliable sources continue to report on him independently. As a final note in this comment, I'll refer to User:Carrite and others who have succinctly summarized the large amount of sources that report on Barron exclusively and not on his father's politics as reason for this subject's independent notability - and nobody has refuted those claims, even with the vast amount of !votes to redirect. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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.

Editors can create a redirect if they so choose. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Spaven

[edit]
Scott Spaven (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)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this transactional announcement and a couple sentences here. A potential redirect is List of Hull Kingston Rovers players. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Peace Mala. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Evans

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

There is no evidence of notability..

The AfD held in 2009 was about a different Pam Evans, the article was turned into a redirect and then simply edited into a new page for a different Pam Evans in 2012. This would seem to have bypassed our normal new page patrols, which would, I think have draftified this. She is an author, but I can't find any articles about her which are independent from her publisher.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the redirect is possibly a good option. As an aside, I'm a little surprised there are only two Pam Evanses in the world who get near to having a page...--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sethu Tom

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cutover

[edit]
Cutover (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:SUSTAINED notability has not been established with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it contains promotional content. hamster717 (discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs) 01:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Bucci

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Emiliano Bucci (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 is apparently some sort of public school teacher/pianist. I could not find any indication of notability. BLP has had no non-circular references since 2006. The result of the previous AfD in 2007 was no consensus. I am unable to apply BLPPROD due to external links. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slowpoke Rodriguez

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with the article's main source being primarily about Speedy Gonzales. List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters is partially incomplete and putting the info there would help to fill out that article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best Southwest

[edit]
Best Southwest (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 advertising puffery term coined for public relations purposes; not used by reliable sources but in press releases and tourism websites Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Adams (fighter)

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

Does not meet notability for fighters (highest rating is #79 in the world) and all the sources are just reporting on his bouts. HeinzMaster (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign desk

[edit]
Campaign desk (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)

Unsourced after fifteen years Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Muhammed-Oyebode

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

The person does not meet the GNG/ANYBIO criteria. The sources are poor, and general notability is not demonstrated BoraVoro (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makersite

[edit]
Makersite (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)

Hits the WP:SERIESA formula pretty exactly - of the 12 citations on this article, 6 are funding announcements, 1 is a short uncritical profile of the CEO, 1 is a venturebeat article with a comment from the CEO on something unrelated to the company, 1 is a marketing release for a company, and the other 3 just acknowledge that the company launched an Autodesk CAD plugin while talking about something else.

No coverage which goes deeper than stating that a particular business deal took place. BrigadierG (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Radio Broadcasting

[edit]
Urban Radio Broadcasting (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:NCORP because of a lack of significant coverage about the company. Let'srun (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agreeing with the nom. There simply isn't aren't supportive sources to show it is notable.
CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Broadcasting

[edit]
Banks Broadcasting (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 lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:NCORP. One possible WP:ATD is redirecting to LIN TV. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology of The Librarian

[edit]
Mythology of The Librarian (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 WP:FANCRUFT; WP:OR. Characters aleady included in their own article. --woodensuperman 12:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - What exactly from this article would be appropriate to upmerge here? The characters are already covered both on the main article as a chart, and in more detail in the separate List of The Librarian characters. Likewise, the main article already has a small section on the "Mythology of the Librarian" that gives a brief overview of the topic. And on top of that, there are essentially no source, even primary ones, being cited here to support any of the information being presented. The rationale for prohibiting that as an ATD is simply because there is nothing that would be appropriate to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Jasrasar. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Jasrasar Tehsil

[edit]
List of villages in Jasrasar Tehsil (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)

Disputed draftification. Resubmitted with no improvement. I feel this is a list too far, or perhaps WP:TOOSOON insofar as almost none of this list have articles. If and when they do I will reach a different view 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnamon Gardens (novel)

[edit]
Cinnamon Gardens (novel) (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:NBOOK, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Online book stores are not independent or reliable. The authors website is a primary source. Dan arndt (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manav Bhinder

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Manav Bhinder (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 general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Nachmanson

[edit]
Rosa Nachmanson (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)

Not seeing anything that really satisfies WP:BIO. She lived, died, and left a lot of money to charity. Only one source, presumably in Swedish. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayler coat of arms

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

The article only cites unreliable sources, and there does not appear to be significant coverage of the coat of arms, if one even exists. toweli (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SolarX

[edit]
SolarX (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 that this person is notable. Count Count (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Nominator withdrew their previous objections [57]. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Hines

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:SIGCOV. In the article, sources are greatly lacking, and the ones seems unreliable. Applicable to WP:INTERVIEW. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand Safari Scribe's thinking here. First, a redirect to List of American musicians isn't feasible because that's a redirect in itself. Then, an Allmusic staff bio is found and Safari Scribe replies that the artist may be notable in the future. But the source doesn't show up some time in the future, it exists now. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this interview has a lot of non-interview, editorial paragraphs, it's a weak keep from me as well. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's true that List of American musicians is a Redirect so it's not an appropriate target page. There are handy scripts you can install that show articles, redirects and pages nominated for deletion in different font colors but you should always check the target page before proposing it so that you can see if it is a suitable target. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening discussion per a request made by the nom at my talk page. I had previously closed this as "keep" (as you can see here).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to 2011 NEAFL season selectively. Owen× ☎ 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2011 QAFL reserves season

[edit]
2011 QAFL reserves season (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: references are all database or WP:ROUTINE coverage by non-independent sources (e.g. the league, the clubs within it, and the online database where scores are entered. This also fails any reasonable 'pub test' of notability: it's a routine season article for a league which itself has no article and – as the reserves league for an already fairly minor competition – would also fail GNG. Aspirex (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What if it was merged into 2011 NEAFL season (with a lot of info taken out)? When the VFA/L reserves existed, for instance, those results were referenced on the main senior season page. These were reserves for 7/17 NEAFL clubs that season Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The extensive sourcing provided by Cunard and Prince of Erebor have resulted in a consensus to keep and clearly addressed the concerns of the nominator and two Delete !voters. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 08:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hyatt Beijing

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

This article has only 1 source in 18 years of existence. Google News comes up with PR type stories or routine coverage of a staff member doing something. Nothing in-depth and third party to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "旅館評：北京東方君悅大酒店" [Hotel Review: Grand Hyatt Beijing]. Next Magazine (in Chinese). 2002-08-29.

      The review notes: "北京東方君悅大酒店的英文全名頗長，叫GRAND HYATT BEIJING AT ORIENTAL PLAZA，在二○○一年十月開幕。 位置北京的心臟王府井。 七八棟高層大廈匯集在一起，蔚為奇觀。 飯店是中國最大的商務建築群東方廣場的一部分，旁邊有一棟一棟的高級公寓和辦公大樓。 從這裡走出去就是全北京最熱鬧的王府井大街，再遠一點可以步行到故宮和天安門去。 整間飯店，官方宣傳文字上說像傳統四合院的格局，其實是一個U字形的建築，分成東翼和西翼。 這次陪著金庸先生下榻，他住一六○一房，我住一○一六房，剛好是一頭一尾。"

      From Google Translate: "The full English name of Grand Hyatt Beijing is quite long, called GRAND HYATT BEIJING AT ORIENTAL PLAZA. It opened in October 2001. Location Wangfujing, the heart of Beijing. Seven or eight high-rise buildings come together to form a spectacle. The hotel is part of Oriental Plaza, the largest business building complex in China, and is adjacent to high-end apartments and office buildings. Walking out from here is Wangfujing Street, the busiest street in Beijing. A little further away, you can walk to the Forbidden City and Tiananmen Square. The entire hotel, according to the official promotional text, is shaped like a traditional courtyard house, but it is actually a U-shaped building, divided into an east wing and a west wing. This time I stayed with Mr. Jin Yong. He lived in room 1601 and I lived in room 1016, which happened to be one end of the room."

    2. Wu, Xueming 吳學銘 (2002-11-12). "老北京 新酒店 令君悅" [Old Beijing. New Hotel. Grand Hyatt Beijing]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. B7.

      The article notes: "北京東方君悅酒店自去年底試行營業以來，至今已屆滿一年，住房率屢創新高，成為北京和中國飯店市場的新話題。位在北京王府井大街上，現是中國最大的商務建築群猁北京東方廣場內的東方君悅大酒店，是現代西方酒店和超級商場的綜合性產物。"

      From Google Translate: "It has been one year since the Grand Hyatt Beijing Oriental opened on a trial basis at the end of last year. The occupancy rate has reached record highs and has become a new topic in Beijing and the Chinese hotel market. Located on Wangfujing Street in Beijing, it is now the largest business building complex in China and the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Beijing Oriental Plaza. It is a comprehensive product of modern Western hotels and super shopping malls."

      The article notes: "走進東方君悅酒店，第一眼的感覺是它不太像凱悅集團酒店的格調，倒有點像香港的海逸酒店，最代表性的該是大廳內獨一無二的那顆水柱型風水球，配合精心的流水設計，創造東方式的流動平衡感。中國人那種講求「流水聚財」的觀念，在東方君悅表現很明顯。"

      From Google Translate: "When you walk into the Grand Hyatt Oriental, your first impression is that it doesn’t quite resemble the style of a Hyatt hotel, but rather resembles the Harbor Plaza Hotel in Hong Kong. The most representative one is the unique water column-shaped Feng Shui ball in the lobby. Combined with the careful flowing water design, it creates an oriental flow and balance. The Chinese concept of "gathering wealth by flowing water" is very obvious in Grand Hyatt Oriental."

    3. "北京東方君悅酒店住宿新體驗" [New accommodation experience at Grand Hyatt Beijing]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2002-01-30. p. D3.

      The review notes: "坐落於中國最大的商務建築群東方廣場之中，呈新月形、門外設有偌大噴泉的北京東方君悅大酒店給人非一般豪華感覺。... 由在亞洲居住了20 年的美國攝影師George Mitchell 所拍攝的黑白照片與陳設摩登的客房配合起來，不但沒有格格不入的感覺，好像筆者這種對老北京文化還未深切認識，但又充滿好奇的 遊人看起來，反而另有趣味。... 最喜歡吃的筆者在這數天裡，可謂大快朵頤。 設於飯店大廳中樓層，配備了一個開放式廚房的凱菲廳 (右下圖) 更是筆者的心頭愛。 "

      From Google Translate: "Located in the Oriental Plaza, the largest business building complex in China, the Grand Hyatt Beijing Oriental Hotel, which is crescent-shaped and has a huge fountain outside the door, gives people an extraordinary sense of luxury. ... The black-and-white photos taken by George Mitchell, an American photographer who has lived in Asia for 20 years, match the modernly furnished guest rooms. Not only do they not feel out of place, it seems like the author, who has not yet deeply understood the culture of old Beijing, but is full of curiosity. From the perspective of tourists, it is actually something else interesting. ... The author, who loves to eat the most, had a great time in these few days. Located on the middle floor of the hotel lobby and equipped with an open kitchen, the Kaffi Hall (pictured below right) is my favorite."

    4. "東方君悅 諧與酒店" [Grand Hyatt Oriental Harmony Hotel]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2001-12-29. p. D1.

      The article notes: "北京東方君悅大酒店位於東長安街一號，位處北京中心地區，集時尚商舖與辦公室於一隅，旁邊是著名鋪與辦公室於一隅，旁邊是著名鋪的公屋大王府。酒店建成後才交由君悅管理，"

      From Google Translate: "Grand Hyatt Beijing is located at No. 1 East Chang'an Street, in the central area of ​​Beijing. It has fashionable shops and offices in one corner. Next to it are famous shops and offices in the same corner. Next to it is the famous public housing estate Grand Palace. After the hotel was completed, it was handed over to Grand Hyatt for management."

    5. "北京東方君悅屢奪魁" [Grand Hyatt Beijing wins the championship again and again]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2006-02-27. p. C1.

      The article notes: "北京東方君悅大酒店自○一年開業以來，先後在多個國內外的酒店評選中奪魁，共獲頒三十項殊榮，踏入○六年僅兩個月，亦已獲頒五項殊榮 ，其中最新獲著名旅遊雜誌「亞洲目的地」(Destin Asian)評選為本年度北京最受歡迎飯店。 至於今年已獲得之獎項分別為：獲「胡潤百富———富豪之選」選為本年度富豪最喜愛的品牌酒店、「私家地理」選為五百家世界最佳酒店、「Conde Nast Traveler」(美國)選為亞洲五十家最佳飯店等。"

      From Google Translate: "Since its opening in 2001, Grand Hyatt Beijing has won the first place in many domestic and foreign hotel selections, and has been awarded a total of 30 awards. In just two months since 2006, it has also been awarded five awards. , which was recently selected as the most popular hotel in Beijing this year by the famous travel magazine "Destin Asian". As for the awards received this year, they are: selected as this year's favorite brand hotel by the rich by "Hurun Report - Rich People's Choice", selected as one of the 500 best hotels in the world by "Private Geography", "Conde Nast Traveler" "(U.S.A.) was selected as one of Asia's 50 Best Hotels, etc."

    6. Events held at the hotel:
      1. Li, Chun 李春 (2019-10-01). "中共建政七十周年 北京觀禮 林鄭傍晚趕返港" [The 70th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. Watching the ceremony in Beijing, Carrie Lam rushes back to Hong Kong in the evening]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. A10.

        The article notes: "香港特首林鄭月娥率兩百四十人觀禮團抵北京，出席中共建政七十周年活動。以港府官員、建制派成員、商界為主體的香港代表團，獲安排住東長安街的東方君悅大酒店，酒店保安嚴密。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor led a viewing group of 240 people to Beijing to attend the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. The Hong Kong delegation, which is composed of Hong Kong government officials, members of the pro-establishment camp, and the business community, was arranged to stay at the Grand Hyatt Hotel on East Chang'an Street. The hotel has tight security."

      2. "NBA快訊 小布 李小龍粉絲" [NBA News: Xiaobu, Bruce Lee fan]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2010-07-27. p. Sports 2.

        The article notes: "在北京東方君悅大酒店舉辦簽書會上，小布為他親自撰寫的圖書「科比24」召開媒體見面會暨新書簽售活動。"

        From Google Translate: "Lakers star Kobe Bryant embarked on a business trip to China on the 26th. In the evening, he held a book signing event at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Beijing. Bryant held a media meeting for his personally written book "Kobe Bryant 24". and book signing event."

      3. "姚明 補請中國隊友 將與葉莉赴歐洲度蜜月" [Yao Ming invites Chinese teammates to replace him. He and Ye Li will go to Europe for their honeymoon]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2007-08-10. p. D1.

        4. The article notes: "今晚的北京東方君悅大酒店「高人林立」，中國男、女籃球隊教練員、隊員悉數現身出席姚明、葉莉的宴會。王治郅、易建聯、隋菲菲等人組成的「巨人陣」外加「中國高度」姚明，今晚的宴會有望成為中國歷史上平均海拔最高的「私人聚會」。"

        From Google Translate: "Tonight, Beijing's Grand Hyatt Oriental Hotel is "full of distinguished people". The coaches and players of the Chinese men's and women's basketball teams all showed up to attend Yao Ming and Ye Li's banquet. The "Giant Formation" composed of Wang Zhizhi, Yi Jianlian, Sui Feifei and others plus "Chinese Height" Yao Ming, tonight's banquet is expected to become the "private party" with the highest average altitude in Chinese history."

    7. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Fodor's Expert Review: Grand Hyatt Beijing". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.

        The review notes: "The wow factor at this top-notch hotel—close to Tiananmen Square and the Forbidden City—comes from its huge glass facade and extraordinary lagoon-like swimming area: above its lush vegetation, waterfalls, and statues, a "virtual sky" ceiling imitates different weather patterns. "

      2. "Grand Hyatt Hotel Beijing". AFAR. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.

        The review notes: "From the lobby, the Grand Hyatt Beijing is another grand hotel with soaring ceilings and windows, polished marble floors, and an attentive staff. Two levels below the lobby, however, is one of the most unique and spectacular wonders ever seen in a hotel: an enormous grotto!"

      3. "Hyatt Opens Its First Hotel in Beijing". Los Angeles Times. 2001-12-09. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.

        The article notes: "Hyatt International Corp., which runs six hotels in China, is opening its first one in Beijing, complete with parking for 12,000 bicycles. About 200 of the 591 rooms at the Grand Hyatt Beijing have been opened; the rest are to open by April."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Grand Hyatt Beijing (simplified Chinese: 北京东方君悦大酒店; traditional Chinese: 北京東方君悅大酒店; pinyin: Běijīng Dōngfāng Jūnyuè Dàjiǔdiàn) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A very thorough search of sources by Cunard (again). Aside from the offline sources listed, I have also found a lot more Chinese sources on the internet, which includes but is not limited to a Wen Wei Po[64] article that mentioned the subject hotel winning multiple awards in 2006, articles from Elle China[65] and Phoenix Television[66] introducing the application of new technologies at the hotel during the pandemic and in 2014 respectively, articles from China Daily[67] and Sina[68] introducing the hotel (these two may seem a bit like advertorial but definitely provided SIGCOV), articles from China Daily[69] and China Hospitality News documenting the appointment of senior staff at the hotel, an article from Sina[70] reporting on the tenth anniversary of the hotel, etc. I believe these have demonstrated notability far beyond GNG and NCORP. @Piscili and Chiselinccc: Please take a look at the newly located sources from Cunard and myself, thanks! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It was probably open to me to close this as no consensus or keep considering Cunard's sourcing (and subsequent pings to those who !voted delete). However, to produce a firmer consensus and allow for a re-evaluation of their position for the nominator and two delete !voters, as well as potential outside input also, relisting for another seven days. Without foreshadowing the future, this will be unlikely to need another 7 beyond this, and may even be able to be closed prior to this extra 7 if consensus becomes clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to TISM. Owen× ☎ 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genre b.goode

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject; the most I've found is just "[...] with the news that the group’s new physical releases will be released through former Shock Records head David Williams’ David Roy Williams Entertainment under TISM’s Genre B. Goode imprint." (1). A redirect to TISM would make sense as an alternative to deletion. toweli (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 01:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Symbols

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Also, There are not enough sources to determine notability.

The ref used in the article is irrelevant to the page's subject. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 05:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Smith (politician)

[edit]
Donna Smith (politician) (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)

Neither being a county supervisor in a largely rural county of less than 100,000 people nor running for the US House of Representatives give automatic notability, and as far as I can tell she received only WP:ROTM local coverage throughout her career. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monastery Among the Temple Trees

[edit]
Monastery Among the Temple Trees (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 the requirements of WP:NBOOK, the work of a non-notable author. Has been tagged as such since Feb 2023 without any improvement. Was de-prodded without establishing how it was notable. Dan arndt (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Ferrada

[edit]
Claudio Ferrada (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any office that makes them inherently pass NPOL and not enough sources to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (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! 04:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the WP:BURDEN of demonstrating notability is on those asserting keep. What another language Wikipedia chooses to do is fine, but not applicable to en.wikipedia pillars, polices, and guidelines. In almost four weeks of waiting, nobody has stepped up to add sufficient sources to meet ANYBIO, GNG, BLP, NPOL or any other relevant SNG. Even the page creator has no special attachement to the page. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford

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

This page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is highly promotional. I began checking the citations and only got through the first section, but a number fail validation or are not reliable sources (e.g. something he himself wrote). As it is, I cannot (yet?) find anything that would make him noteworthy. It will take work to cut the article down to the actual reliable sources, and then to ones that are significantly about him. My gut feeling is that there will not be significant sources, but it will take some time to figure that out. Lamona (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assessment is incorrect. The 3 places you marked the page with [verification failed] were not accurate. 2 of the sources used this article, which you need to find his photo and click on it, and then a long bio will appear which verifies the info. Next you had an issue with source 11 freemannews.tulane.edu/, it partially verified the content, but the source 12, right after verifies everything. As far as being promotional, please feel free to revise it. Most of the article was written by me, but at least one other person has added to it. I am pretty certain that I didn't write anything promotional myself. Lionsonny (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage exists. Here are the good sources:
Forthworth Inc - This article has significant coverage on him.
Travel Talk - Long article on him and his family
Hawkins Crawford - Article about his wedding and has a bio about him and his wife.
Forthworth Business - A good long paragraph of bio on him
tulane.edu - Article about his Tedx Talk. It is short, but the fact that he did a Ted talk should help with notability.
Book: In the Warlords' Shadow - This book contains a few paragraphs of info on him.
Voyage Dallas: This is an interview, but there is 3 paragraphs of intro about him that is not an interview, hence it should count towards notability.
texas.gov - A long paragraph of bio on him
Peace Corps Connect - Click on his image and you will see a long bio on him.

Based on all the above, significant coverage exists and he meets notability guidelines. Lionsonny (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionsonny None of these sources is valid for establishing notability:
  • Fort Worth Inc is a WP:TRADES magazine, and only lengthy, in-depth features (not short news items like this one) from trade publications can be used to establish notability.
  • The "Travel Talk" article appears to be from a magazine called "University Park Life," which appears to be a real estate promotional product. (See example: https://issuu.com/daveperry-millerrealestate/docs/hea_carla_uplife_for_issuu). Furthermore, the PDF is hosted on the subject's own website! There is no way this can meet the standard of reliable and independent.
  • The wedding announcement can be used to verify facts but not to establish notability, since wedding announcements are generally supplied or based on data supplied by the couple and thus not independent.
  • Fort Worth Business - same trade publication issue noted above.
  • Tulane - source is not independent as it is his alma mater, plus it is a brief mention, not WP:SIGCOV
  • The book I cannot view, but if it's only a few paragraphs in a full book, that's unlikely to be considered significant coverage.
  • Voyage Dallas is an WP:INTERVIEW and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and ineligible to count toward notability.
  • Texas.gov is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus a primary source.
  • The Peace Corps site is a short official bio, not a long one, but either way not an independent or secondary source.
As I said when nominating, this is a WP:REFBOMB trying to create an illusion of notability through sheer volume of sources, but as I show here, none of them passes the bar of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with Delete - due to lack of independent sources. The book has two nice paragraphs about him, but that is not enough to establish notability. The remainder are mainly local fluff pieces. The TedX talk does not establish notability - there have been hundreds/thousands of them and "TedX" is now a franchise. I find short bios that cannot be determined to be independent and a bunch of name checks. Although there are sources that state facts that are in the article, either they are not independent or are not sufficiently reliable. This person has done some interesting things so if a few reliable sources write significant and independent works about him, he could have a presence here. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. based on presented citations above by Lionsonny, this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In particular, Forthworth Inc, Forthworth Business, Book: In the Warlords' Shadow, Peace Corps Connect and Voyage Dallas have good amount of coverage on him. Hkkingg (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The references presented by Lionsonny for GNG purposes have been disputed by two editors, and endorsed by another. Relisting for further analysis of these sources by other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, same comment as Daniel.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like every tiny random irrelevant source has been mentioned in this AfD conveniently, so I can resoundingly vote delete based on the lack of good quality coverage that goes deeper than short profiles/announcements. BrigadierG (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dclemens1971. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability, and most sources that don't fall under WP:TRIVIALMENTION are either less-reliable or primary sources. B3251(talk) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the source analysis by Dclemens1971. This is an enormous amount of trivia accumulated to synthesize an apparently cited biography of a relatively unknown living person. Right out of one's own scrapbook, perhaps. I generally feel some sympathy for the subject; sometimes it's a bad idea to have article about oneself. But in the case of this subject, I have no particular sympathy, because five years apart, two separate new contributors decided to create largely the same page about the same subject, using many of the same sources. And both of the pages came up for deletion. What a shock it was to discover the last such page creator, TheCarFanatic was blocked for likely covert advertising! This might bear some further examination. BusterD (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: For those who think it's completely risk-free to try create a Wikipedia article about a living someone (perhaps as a business card), these two deletion procedures will be available for anyone to find later when someone inevitably DOES attempt to search for this namespace. Readers of the future may make their own judgements when they see it deleted twice, and no reputation-cleaning firm (including national security agencies) can get the AfDs deleted, so the stain is set, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, is it observable that this article was moved to mainspace a few days after its creator's account became autoconfirmed and that since this page creation the account has made only a handful of unrelated edits? But the low quality of the sourcing toward notability standards is what's driving the discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple20

[edit]
Ripple20 (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)

is mostly copy and paste; not notable enough. most sources are notifications of the vulnerability under discussion Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 16:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G12 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Aaron Liu (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see how this is a copy/paste or copyvio. I created this page from multiple sources and the copyvio report shows that it is unlikely to be a copyright violation. Additionally, there is more information about this vulnerability now than when the page was first created, so I believe that it is still notable and the article can be expanded. —Ost (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Earwig only brought up 2 reverse-copies. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: earwig didn't turn up anything useful, copyright problems should be sorted out at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not here. Found sources such as [71], [72]. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cos (X + Z) 16:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted via A7‎. With thanks to Bbb23. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laniatus

[edit]
Laniatus (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:NCORP, no coverage to speak of. There's some confusing connection between this company and probably-notable HeroEngine, but I can't discern what it might be, and RS haven't covered it in any case. ~ A412 talk! 04:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, United States of America, and Colorado. ~ A412 talk! 04:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything relevant in RS myself, the article is effectively entirely unsourced since the only sources is a Seeking Alpha blog post about HeroEngine which does not even mention the article subject (which makes sense considering the article claims it to be founded 13 years after said blog post was made). I suppose if an RS could be found actually linking this to HeroEngine it could be redirected here, but as far as I can tell there's no evidence any third party RS even knows this company exists. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you know what, I'm going to try and A7 this because I don't think a claim that HeroEngine makes this company significant would be credible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hexaware Technologies (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)

Tone seems improved but there does not seem to be any ORGCRIT eligible sources since the previous AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The last AFD discussion was in February 2020 and since then the company received several articles and stories such as this article in Bloomberg 1, the Hindu articles 2, 3 and 4 (which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP), and this article from Reuters. More citations might haven't included in the 2020 previous page version such as The Hindu article 5 and the Reuters article 5. Rchardk (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rchardk, reliable is fine and all, and if that were the only criteria it could have been kept even back in 2020, but there are three others. Can you take a look at the rules for trivial, especially routine coverage or those for independence and tell me which of the sources you posted meet those? They seem like the usual announcements copied from press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please assess new sources,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narayandas Laddha High School

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

I cant find any mention of this school in reliable secondary sources, fails notability requirements for school (WP:NSCHOOL). Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Narayandas Laddha High School article does not provide enough reliable sources to demonstrate the school's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore, the article lacks detailed, verifiable information and appears insufficiently comprehensive to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SL93 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Reber

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

I found nothing that shows notability per WP:AUTHOR. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think her work on Blues Clues, Chicken soup for the teenage soul, and others targeting the youth market, are significant. Her work seems to be a positive input for that target audience. Her listings on the Authority Control Database indicates that her works are also of interest to audiences in countries beyond the United States. — Maile (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how that makes her pass the author guideline, or where the significance is without even one bit of significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States

[edit]
List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (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)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.
As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.
Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to clarify a thing here. WP:LISTPURP is a manual of style, and explain what purposes of lists are; it now a way to determine notability, which can only be done through WP:NLIST. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE - while stamp collecting is not the huge hobby it was a couple of decades ago, there is a huge literature on such clubs. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. "There is a huge literature on such clubs"....it would help, of course, if examples were provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this is a list article relating to a notable hobby (stamp collecting) and with notable members (stamp clubs)—although arguably the latter is not a requirement for a list topic; you could have a list article even if none of its members are individually notable. It is not necessary to find a reliable source that says, "the following is a list of stamp clubs in the United States", but any source that does something along those lines may be cited, even if it is A) a directory—Wikipedia is not a directory; that doesn't mean that directories cannot be used as sources—or B) it only lists some of the clubs mentioned in this list. It is unnecessary to cite a source to say that a club whose name identifies what it is is a stamp club. At most, individual items that are identifiable as stamp clubs by their name just need a source to show that they exist (or did at one point), and for that purpose a directory is fine. Even this is unnecessary for items that link to articles about notable clubs, which are documented in the linked articles. Satisfying these requirements should be exceptionally easy... P Aculeius (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now cited as many of the entries as I could find at least a directory or event listing for in general philatelic literature. And to repeat, WP:DIRECTORY does not apply here; it is well-established that items that are not individually notable may be combined into list articles. Stamp collecting is clearly a notable topic, and as mentioned above there is indeed considerable literature on the subject, including stamp collecting societies, their history, membership, and publications. I have cited a number of examples to verify the stamp clubs listed; there was of course much more activity and many more publications in the early twentieth century, when social clubs and their publications were a staple of American life.
Most of this body of literature is not freely-accessible online, but enough is available in previews and snippet views on Google Books to verify the existence of most of the stamp clubs mentioned, along with their location and some other details—and for the purposes of this article, which is merely a list of philatelic societies in the United States, that is sufficient to warrant their inclusion. Many more could be added if the literature on the subject were easier to access, or someone spent more than a couple of days poring over such periodicals at the library. P Aculeius (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Once we discard the clearly canvassed votes, and give due weight to the version of source analysis that is supported by P&G, there is a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoOzy' OS and the Cristal Gem

[edit]
BoOzy' OS and the Cristal Gem (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 appears to fail WP:NFILM. This was a short film which was submitted to a 2013 Dailymotion contest connected with Annecy ("+ de courts"), but which did not win the judging ([77]). I can't find any mention of it in the archived Annecy web site, nor can I find any substantial coverage online, just a lot of entries in film databases and an unusual amount of media on Commons (for now, at least: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by REDƎYE). Omphalographer (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't find any substantial coverage in secondary sources outside of a blog or two. Nowhere good to redirect to, it isn't mentioned in Annecy International Animation Film Festival and there's no article for the director. Odd that a French film has articles in 30 languages but not French. hinnk (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it was in French Wikipedia but they deleted it years ago as non-notable. hinnk (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find many secondary sources on Google : a critic review in Romania, another in London (2023), an interview in Paris (2014), another in India (2023), etc. IMDB shows 1700 votes, 8 awards and 1 nomination. This seems to me to be very ample in terms of notoriety for a short film ^^ (note : I remember the AFD in FR in 2014 : at that time, there was not enough sources (only 1 interview I think) but with today awards and coverage, I think the article should be recreated in FR) --Supersonic888 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not 8 but 10 wins, and not 1 but 4 nominations ^^ I just added "Critical response" and "accolades" sections with sources on the article. --Supersonic888 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are primary sources that don't help meet the general notability guideline, those two reviews are both from sites that accept payment for reviews ([78][79][80]), and the World Film Carnival Singapore site you added to the article was running malware that immediately redirected me without even showing a review. Do you understand my concern when someone says a subject is very ample in terms of notoriety, with this as the evidence? hinnk (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm admittedly not an expert on the film industry, but most of those awards appear to be from monthly online competitions, not notable film festivals. For example, the "Rome International Movie Awards" is a blog which issues dozens of awards to amateur films every month. Omphalographer (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an expert on the film industry either but it seems they paid for participating in festivals, not for reviews or awards. I didn't have any problem for visiting the World Film Carnival site (no malware for me) ^^
    The fact that it is an amateur film (if it is one? I don't know) does not seem to me to be a criterion for deletion: we are talking about notoriety and I believe that this point is respected, internationally (I add that on Commons there are photos showing the director with trophies at these festivals in Asia, which also shows international distribution).
    If we look at Category:2013 animated short films and IMDB (when available):
    • Aruvu Rezuru: Kikaijikake no Yōseitachi = 23 votes
    • Backward Run = 77 votes, 1 win & 3 nominations
    • The Blue Umbrella (2013 film) = 11000 votes, 1 nomination, 17 critics (Pixar)
    • A Boy and His Atom = 454 votes, 1 critic
    • The Chaperone 3D = 90 votes, 7 wins & 4 nominations, 1 critic
    • Death Billiards = 2100 votes, 2 critics
    • The End of Pinky = 51 votes, 2 nominations, 3 critics
    • Game Over (2013 film) = 0 vote
    • Get a Horse! = 5600 votes, 2 wins & 2 nominations, 20 critics (Mickey)
    • Gloria Victoria = 137 votes, 1 win & 7 nominations, 5 critics
    • Hollow Land = 58 votes, 8 wins & 3 nominations, 1 critic
    • Impromptu (2013 film) = 28 votes, 1 nomination, 1 critic
    • Kick-Heart = 1000 votes, 1 wins & 3 nominations, 9 critics
    • Mary & Myself = 16 votes, 1 nomination
    • The Missing Scarf = 468 votes, 15 wins & 5 nominations, 4 critics
    • Missing U (film) = 26 votes
    • Mr Hublot = 5200 votes, 6 wins & 2 nominations, 14 critics
    • Party Central = 3700 votes (Disney Pixar)
    • The River's Lazy Flow = 11 votes, 1 win & 1 nomination
    • The Scarecrow (2013 film) = 248 votes, 5 wins
    • The Smurfs: The Legend of Smurfy Hollow = 986 votes, 1 nomination, 13 critics (The Smurfs)
    • Subconscious Password = 198 votes, 3 wins & 5 nominations, 4 critics
    • Toy Story of Terror! = 18000 votes, 6 wins & 10 nominations, 31 critics (Disney Pixar)
    This is to show that with 1700 votes it has more votes than most other films, even more than The Smurfs. Only 6 blockbuster films have more votes (Disney Pixar, Mickey, etc).
    To me, all this is significant in terms of notoriety even though one could still argue that some votes could be rigged. Supersonic888 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User votes on IMDb are not in any way, shape, or form a measure of notability (nor "notoriety"). Omphalographer (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and that's not what I'm basing it on here (I just point this out, in addition to my remarks), but it's an interesting indicator ^^ Supersonic888 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are fine with me and the notoriety seems sufficient to me, with good worldwide coverage. However, some festivals mentioned are a bit light (Morocco Fest and Oregon Film Festival: there is only one primary source). The article seems acceptable to me on Wikipedia in French as well --CineDany (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Convinced by the arguments, sources ok for me. The only point that would make me hesitate would be the film’s absence from major review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. --SuperKFuu (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not impressed by the quality of the sources; this seems to fail the notability guidelines. There's a concerted effort by the creators to prop up the work across Wikimedia projects but the coverage just isn't there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several less experienced editors participating here and I urge them to review Wikipedia:Notability (films) which is Wikipedia's guideline on how to judge notability regarding films and it doesn't include consideration by IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. The nominator pointed out this page but I don't think some editors here are familiar with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Based on the references that have been added, I put together a quick source assessment to evaluate where we are now. It seems to me like WP:GNG has still not been reached. hinnk (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:hinnk
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
IMDb Yes No WP:IMDB ? ✘ No
C2S Network No Press kit No Yes ✘ No
Dailymotion contest Yes ? No Just the title listed as a contest winner, although "More infos" section lists a different winner ✘ No
AllMovie Yes ~ WP:ALLMUSIC, AllMovie ratings seem unreliable since they're included even on upcoming/lost films No Mostly facts imported from Wikidata, otherwise just the numerical rating ✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore ? ? ? Dead link, failed verification, Internet Archive page is also empty ? Unknown
Monkey Bread Tree ~ No Offers coverage as a paid service Yes ✘ No
fiffest ~ No Offers coverage as a paid service Yes ✘ No
Paris à contre-jour No Interview ? ? Dead link, failed verification ✘ No
Oniros Film Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Sea & Beach Film Festival Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Druk International Film Festival Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Cult Critic Movie Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Rome International Movie Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete: The film is not notable per our standards. Little to no coverage in .fr sources, this is the best [81], it's basically a listing akin to the imdb. The awards won are not notable (none from notable film festivals), nor can I find confirmation of the Annecy win (the source used, Dailymotion, is not reliable). Annecy is a big deal in France, and the fact that zero media there have covered it is proof of non-notability. Here's the search [82] in Gnews, looking for sources from France: listings for kombucha drinks and other kinds of nonsense, completely unrelated ot this film. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's the French wiki deletion discussion from 2015: [83]... The sources found were the films sponsors, none of which were in French either. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: My French is limited but you're just reading the Afd nom's rationale apparently....and he (nor anyone on that page) does not say that no sources in French existed.... (not that it should have mattered the least, btw). Also, shall we delete every page the French Wikipedia has decided to delete? Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. In addition, the AfD on the French wiki is from 2015, whereas most sources provided here are more recent. Not only should this comment not be considered, but it also makes me wonder if the French article could not be restored. Streets4rage (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_animated_short_films#2013: and add the sources there, if it's judged insufficient for a page; but not opposed to Keep myself, given the sources presented and the number of screenings/awards. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for many reasons that follow the guidelines:
    • the film is worldwidely distributed and has received full-length reviews by at least three critics ten years after its initial release
    • the film is historically notable as it was screened in at least two (maybe up to eight or more?) festivals more than five years after initial release
    • in addition the film has been covered in at least two books in English (which I have added in the bibliography section) including one which considers it one of Dailymotion 120 successes
    • the Hungarian film database Mafab ranks the film as the 30th (among 3181) best short film and the 291st (among 3708) best animated film
    • and by searching for “BoOzy’ OS and the Cristal Gem” on Google, I found on the 1st page that the film is ranked 6th among the most consulted film listings on this French database. By the way, speaking of numbers, if we look closely at the Dailymotion source, the film had been watched on this website 144,032 times as of October 6, 2014, ie about a year and a half after its release. These numbers, like IMDB's, do not establish its notoriety but it is a coherent whole that is find almost everywhere which indicates that it has a substantial audience and not just limited to one geographical area.

In a short time, this is all I find; I don't have time to look further but all this (including comments above) seem really more than enough to me --Streets4rage (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider online views or listings in databases to prove notability. Unless the numbers are audited, they can be tricked/gamed by streaming farms. Similarly for online music, we don't use Apple/Spotify streams/downloads as proof of notability as they aren't audited the way radio airplay is or album sales at the retail channels are. Being 291st out of 3000-something films isn't terribly notable either... Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Streets4rage, thanks for adding the book sources to the bibliography. Unfortunately, neither of these meet the standard for reliable sources. You'll notice Dailymotion 120 Success Secrets was immediately removed by an uninvolved editor because Emereo Publishing republishes content that mirrors Wikipedia content. World Book of Short Films is a self-published book, which means it isn't acceptable as a source. I would recommend being a lot more cautious when taking facts from a press kit. hinnk (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree b, about numbers, Streets4rage did not write anything of the sort, quite the contrary: "These numbers, like IMDB's, do not establish its notoriety". 291st out of 3708 isn't terribly notable, but 30th out of 3181 is (but before making me say what I did not say: that does not establish notoriety ^^) - on the other hand, the first two points mentioned by Streets4rage do ("three critics ten years after its initial release" & "screened in at least two (maybe up to eight or more?) festivals more than five years after initial release"). Supersonic888 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Streaming numbers don't equal notability here, neither do non-notable film festivals. I'm unsure what being ImDB listed has to do with anything, we don't consider it for notability here, so being listed there is non-important here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is another source assessment table, based on those from Hinnk and Streets4rage (which was removed even though it contained important info for this vote). I think Hinnk is right about the books, so I'm editing here what Streets4rage wrote. It seems to me like WP:GNG has been reached. --Supersonic888 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Supersonic888
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
IMDb Yes No WP:IMDB Yes ✘ No
C2S Network No Press kit No Yes ✘ No
Dailymotion contest Yes Yes They are the organizers of the contest Yes Just the title listed as a contest winner, although "More infos" section lists a different winner
It's clear: the film was chosen by the public, and the jury chose another one 		✔ Yes
AllMovie Yes ~ WP:ALLMUSIC, AllMovie ratings seem unreliable since they're included even on upcoming/lost films No Mostly facts imported from Wikidata, otherwise just the numerical rating ✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore Yes Yes ~ Dead link, failed verification, Internet Archive page is also empty
I was able to access the link a few days ago, but the page loads endlessly today. Maybe the site is under maintenance? I don't know how Internet Archive works, so I'm not validating it at this time. 		~ Partial
Monkey Bread Tree Yes Yes Offers coverage as a paid service
WP:AGF we should assume good faith: creators said they didn't pay for it 		Yes ✔ Yes
fiffest Yes Yes Offers coverage as a paid service
WP:AGF we should assume good faith: creators said they didn't pay for it 		Yes ✔ Yes
Paris à contre-jour No Interview Yes Yes Dead link, failed verification
link ok with Internet Archive, only video does not load and can be accessed here 		✘ No
Cult Critic No Interview Yes Yes ✘ No
Oniros Film Awards Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
Sea & Beach Film Festival Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
Druk International Film Festival Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
World Film Carnival Singapore Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
Cult Critic Movie Awards Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
Rome International Movie Awards Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
Dailymotion 120 Success Secrets Yes No Emereo Publishing republishes content that mirrors Wikipedia content Yes Page 10 ✘ No
World Book of Short Films Yes No self-published book Yes Page 49 ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Supersonic888, please remove my name as the preparer of that table, its conclusions are very different than mine. In particular, the standard for WP:SIGCOV is that a source "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Meeting this with sources that do not discuss the subject in detail is not a reasonable interpretation. Similarly, invoking WP:AGF about whether or not the creators paid for coverage is off-topic. WP:RS is for evaluating the publication, not the production studio. We don't conduct our own investigations into the article's subject, we identify questionable sites that are sponsored/promotional in nature and then don't use them.
I appreciate your adding additional detail about how you accessed World Film Carnival Singapore. The Internet Archive has made backups of the URL in question 4 times in the past year, and it shows that the page has been broken for quite some time. For me, it strains credulity that the page was broken when I visited it on May 28, came back up only when you visited it later that day, and then immediately broke again for everyone. The place you would've been able to been able to get that quote would be the C2S press kit. That would mark the second time an editor in this AfD added material from the press kit that they couldn't actually have accessed but glossed over that fact.
Since I don't have time to do it myself, I would ask that the AfD closer evaluate this discussion for any signs of meat puppetry or off-wiki canvassing. hinnk (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hinnk, sorry about your name, I copied and pasted the table and didn't see it. It wouldn't have bothered me if you had changed it ^^
As for WP:AGF, I copied and pasted what Streets4rage wrote, too. I mentioned it and any way, it seems fair to me: your link for a paid service does not say that all reviews were purchased.
To be more specific about the World Film Carnival Singapore, I accessed the link at least a year ago through Facebook. But yes, I copied the link from the press kit, as for the other 2 reviews, which was easier because everything is in the same place (try to find a Facebook post from a year ago, good luck ^^). Besides, on my computer the link was grayed out, which shows that I had already accessed it. I cleared the cache this afternoon (French time) and since then it loads endlessly. I tried your archive links and it didn't work neither. I don't know how to put another date.
I don't see what this proves about me and I don't know what else to tell you, sorry. Yes, you can ask that the AfD closer evaluate this discussion for any signs of meat puppetry or off-wiki canvassing (I have more interesting things to do than that ^^), I won't speak for the others contributors but personally I don't mind ^^ Supersonic888 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I am super curious how some people found this AfD. (For transparency, I found it through a Commons file deletion discussion).
    Streets4rage hasn't edited this project since 2023 before finding this.
    SuperKFuu hasn't edited since 2022 before finding this.
    Supersonic888 has one edit in 2023 and otherwise also hadn't edited since 2022 before finding this.
    CineDany had 9 edits since 2021 before finding this
    I suspect some sort of outside canvassing is going on here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Hello The Squirrel Conspiracy,
    And I'm super surprised to read how you "arrange" and interpret things... So much bad faith!
    As for me:
    • you probably haven't seen it, but I contribute mainly to the Wiki in FR (I'm not a big contributor, does that prevent me from giving my opinion?).
    • you probably haven't seen it, too, but I participated in the debate on Commons on May 2 (because I used two images to illustrate the article in FR "Sonic the Hedgehog (films dérivés)", since I have to justify myself), almost a month before the opening of this discussion...
    • and by the way, you deleted the images on this article in FR so that you could then delete them on Commons... well done.
    • worse, you deleted the entire mention by indicating: « This was already deleted on fr.wiki as spam », which is totally false: the article was deleted as not notable, as already mentioned in the present discussion. You can also check it there: Discussion:BoOzy' OS et la Gemme de Cristal/Admissibilité. So this is absolutely not spam, it is an obvious lie - maybe to deceive contributors? I find it shameful coming from a contributor who seems experienced.
    I see that you closed the discussion on Commons, even though there was no consensus yet, in defiance of the contributors who defended the topic.
    Ah, since you seem to insist on super: my name here is Supersonic888, it starts with super, just like SuperKFuu... How doubtful! And Streets4rage starts with an S... Mmm. Lol ^^
    More seriously: no one asked me to intervene here, I did it on my own. Again, please do some checking, I don't mind.
    You think what you want, but it's very unpleasant to come here and read all these suspicions. So if you suspect, check rather than writing it down to sow doubt.
    Moreover, I imagine that by reading what you have written, a contributor who would like to leave an opinion for conservation risks not expressing his opinion, for fear of being accused too. In any case, it makes me regret having participated. Thank you. Supersonic888 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I just see that you asked for a speed deletion on all wikis with the message: "Spam. I believe there is a coordinated effort off-site to promote this non-notable project across a large number of Wikipedia languages. Already deleted on fr.wiki and will likely be deleted on en.wiki shortly."
    Once again, you use the word spam. No comment.
    In addition, you request a deletion without discussion, on a simple assumption on your part. For instance, I see on NL: "It must meet the requirements for speedy deletion, otherwise use the regular procedure for nominating pages."
    And once again, you are using the pretext of the deleted FR article. As Streets4rage wrote and at the risk of being accused again: "the AfD on the French wiki is from 2015, whereas most sources provided here are more recent.",
    And by the way, tell me if I'm wrong, but aren't the rules different from one wiki to another?
    But the worst thing is that you already consider that the page is going to be deleted, even though the debate is not closed and is far from consensus.
    Since the majority of articles have been deleted, you can justify the deletion on Commons. Well done!
    And you even removed images from Commons that are still used in Wikipedia articles. But since they are going to be deleted, you are getting a head start ^^
    Basically, there is no point in arguing here, your decision has already been made. What is the point of this discussion then? Supersonic888 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating non-notable articles is spam, that's literally why we debate to remove them. They also note the English and Italian ones were created by the same creator, using the same type of sponsored, non-notable posts. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this article was deleted on June 8th from Simple Wikipedia for G11 [84], but I'm not sure we could speedy this particular article on en-wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dailymotion is not significant coverage, it's literally a photo from the film. IMdB qualifying still implies user-supplied content, so not a reliable source. MonkeyBread Tree says on their FAQ:"Due to our small body of people working within the selection committee, we only grant submission fee waivers on a case by case review. We often only waive fees when someone has certain exceptional issues which would prevent them from being able to enter the festival without our help, such as: international blockades against a particular country, trade restrictions and a severe lack of funds…". Submission fees are paying, so again, not a valid sourcing. None of these are useful as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Fiffest also takes payment for films: [85]. Have you even reviewed these sources before presenting your analysis? Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Oaktree b,
I don't know how IMdB "accept" festivals entries, but for example I don't find there the "Paris à contre-jour" award, which makes me think that it is not a recognized festival. So they accept some festivals, but not all (once again I don't know the criteria). I also don't know how IMdB validates its data, but I doubt it's simply with a declaration from users (at least for awards) because otherwise it would be easy to add fake awards in order to say that a film got an award at a major festival (Cannes, for example). On the contrary, I believe that this information is verified, I don’t see how it could be otherwise.
As for the festival fees, I understand what you say, and thank you for this Fiffest link (which I didn't read at the time: I admit I just looked at the film review). There are entry fees, that's a fact. Creators said they "pay to participate in festivals" (so no contradiction here), not that they purchased awards or reviews, which is very different. And about these fees, isn't this the case for all festivals? I am not an expert on the film industry but I can't imagine a festival like Cannes being free, otherwise they would be flooded with films. So yes, I agree the 8 (or 10) awards here have not the same value as the Cannes one, that’s obvious and I understand that this could not be a sufficient argument. But anyway, following WP:NFILM:
  • 1/ "the film is worldwidely distributed and has received full-length reviews by at least three critics ten years after its initial release" (if in doubt that the link for the World Film Singapore review is not found, we will say two critics).
  • 2/ "the film is historically notable as it was screened in at least two (maybe up to eight or more?) festivals more than five years after initial release"
Supersonic888 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the film festivals are not notable and we still have no extensive coverage about it. That's the matter here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fairly clear quid pro quo inherent to most of these online monthly film festivals. Of course they don't explicitly say "yes, here's the price for each award you win" - but when they give out dozens of awards every month, describe themselves up front as an "IMDb qualifying competition", and don't publish lists of non-award-receiving participants, I don't think it's any real secret what's going on. Omphalographer (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They still aren't notable, these are basically diploma mills. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Oaktree b and Omphalographer,
About lists of non-award-receiving participants, I couldn't find them on their website, too (maybe on social media? Too long to check, there are too much posts/photos). Creators said "Sometimes we've won awards (IMDb certified for those mentioned - do you think IMDb would support fake awards?), sometimes been nominated, sometimes just been selected, sometimes not.". On the film's Facebook page ([86]), I see that the film has been selected in other festivals than those mentioned here (Luleå International Film Festival in Sweden, Lift-Off Global Network at Pinewood Studios (UK, with "Vimeo on demand" service by the way), Prisma Film Awards in Rome...) and then nothing. So I guess the film did'nt win anything there, which shows that awards are not given to everyone.
I just consulted World Film Carnival Singapore and Cult Critic Movie Awards (which are both very messy), there are a lot of sources (but some seem of poor quality to me, it will need cleaning). It seems that there is an annual screening (and not monthly) and that the trophies are only awarded once a year, to the best films/directors (the monthly awards would be a sort of qualification?). On Google, I actually see only few people with these trophies. So these festivals may be diploma mills, but maybe not trophy mills. The director of the Cristal Gem won at least 2 (there were photos on Commons, which have just been deleted while the discussion is not closed) and his film was screened with a trophy presentation ceremony (at least in Singapore and Paro, I haven't checked for other cities/countries). For a small 5-minute French short film, I find it remarkable.
PS: I just found a secondary source for the Oniros Awards on universalmovies.it (film was finalist, before being nominated), which I will add to the article ^^ Supersonic888 (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Google, I actually see only few people with these trophies. Yeah, that's because they charge extra for those. I'm not even kidding - for example, the rules for the Oniros Film Awards state that "Trophies are optional, are not included in the submission fee and all Winners may order the trophy by paying production costs and shipping costs". Omphalographer (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are small, non-notable "film festivals" that have no notability offline. Sure, there's always the chance they can become notable in time, but we aren't there yet. We had a similar discussion in the last year about a Belgian film that involved time travel/ancient Egypt, using much of the same arguments here; for the life of me, I can't remember the name. These festivals were and are thinly veiled PR items that anyone can submit to after paying a fee, then can "Win". Paying for your trophy isn't really helping disprove my point either... Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_4&oldid=1228605311"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy