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. Hog FarmTalk 05:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability demands. Jenyire2 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2021 (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 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.
Delete, agree with nominator, notability is not established and relies on questionable sources from the article creation in 2010. Even their own website no longer seems to exist. Bungle(talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Fails WP:GNG.The sources do not show notability. Note: Social media accounts and also website are not active. --Kemalcan (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2021 (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.
Article cites only one sources. A google search turned up only passing mentions. Article is promotional - may have COI issues. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I see why it appears to be an issue, in particular the way the lists are constructed, although an article that's been around for over 15 years probably has survived that long because the topic itself has some notability. Being promotional of having COI issues is in itself not a deletion reason. Bungle(talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It doesn't seem to be very well known but it was easy to find mentions in several reliable and well known sources [1][2][3][4][5].--Sjö (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep per Sjö. There appears to be a lot of coverage in domestic reliable sources. IceWelder [✉] 20:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjö, I'm a Swedish native speaker and can confirm that the sources they list make for solid RS coverage.--AlexandraIDV 07:17, 31 January 2021 (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.
Speedy delete Article is a handful of sentences long and lacks any sourcing that establishes why this meme is somehow notable.TH1980 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as per this and, as per the same source, has not played football since 2017 so is highly unlikely to ever meet footballer notability standards. A WP:BEFORE search revealed no significant coverage but it was made difficult by her having plenty of namesakes. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:09, 25 January 2021 (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 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.
While his case achieved some notability, it's unclear that he's notable enough beyond this one event. It does not appear to have broad enough impact for the crime to be notable either StarM 19:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - had a look for sources but didn't find anything Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:46, 2 February 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism with only a tiny handful of hits on Google Scholar. Lots of the research described in this article is real, but to call it "noometry" is WP:SYNTH. Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; neologism; essay; confuses mind and brain; the content is better covered elsewhere, such as at Neuron#Connectivity. Klbrain (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with all of the above - good points. Google Scholar shows five obscure "articles" - none of the publications satisfy WP:MEDRS, i.e., none are reliable sources. A PubMed search for the term anywhere in any article indexed by MEDLINE, resulted in "Your search for noometry retrieved no results." The Oxford English Dictionary describes the word as "obsolete" and "apparently an isolated use" - referring to the satirical work by T.L. Peacock (1817). Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) [he/his/him] 01:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thank you, good people of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine where I raised this issue[7], I'm glad that my feeling that something was off here turns out to be correct. Fram (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (if another voice is needed) as per comments on project page --Iztwoz (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleagues! I sincerely thank You for your efforts and reviews of the article. I kindly ask You to help and transfer the results of measurements, quantifications, and calculations, that are significant in your opinion, to special articles Neuron#Connectivity, Global brain, etc. Sincerely, I wish you health and creative success! Noophelia 2.0 (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is stuff in Noometry that might be of use in other articles. I don't see a specific, single destination to suggest for a merge or a redirect, but, Noophelia 2.0, you are free to use material elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will also be grateful to You for Your mutual assistance in the general highly-motivated and intellectual work, related to the unfolding of the World Brain. Noophelia 2.0 (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2021 (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.
Delete - I agree with the nominator; nothing on the Indonesian Wikipedia shows notability either Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:47, 31 January 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fails NPOL and GNG. Small town mayor and failed candidacies don't meet the low bar of NPOL and there's no other meaningful coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 19:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of places with roughly 7,000 people anywhere are almost never notable. This applies even more when the place is a dinky community in a sea of lots of other communities, many of which are significantly larger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage in WP:GNG to merit inclusion. I'm also concerned about violations of WP:MULTIPLE, with User:Foxcaster and User:Charles Eugene Marsala working identically on this material, the former in draftspace and mainspace, the latter in userspace. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please be open to letting the article be revised. Atherton California is not a "dinky community." It is the heart of Silicon Valley Zip Code is 94027, one of the top Zip Codes in the Country. Homes to the executives of Silicon Valley. Although Marsala lost when he campaigned in 2016 for US Senate, there is much more that he is doing in film documentaries with a weekly TV-show and book publishing. Since 2019 Marsala has been President of the American-Italian Federation of the Southeast and on the national Italian board. He is frequently cited by local media as a specialist on community topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Eugene Marsala (talk • contribs)
Delete Falls incredibly short of NPOL and GNG. Binksternet, I opened an SPI about the two days ago regarding MEAT/Socking but it's still open. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors of small towns in the 6K population range are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — to qualify for an article, he would have to show that he's somehow much, much more important than most other mayors of places the size of Atherton. But nothing here does that: the article is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as the self-published content of organizations he's directly affiliated with, that are not support for notability at all, and the few sources that are actually coming from real media aren't about him, but just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something else. That's not how you reference a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. And no, being a potential candidate for a city council seat, even in a larger city than Atherton, still doesn't get a person into Wikipedia either — if he wins the special election and thereby becomes an actual city councillor, then yes, New Orleans is an important enough city that he might well qualify for an article at that time, but simply being a candidate for political office does not get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself. Charles, please note that Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which you're entitled to place yourself for campaign publicity. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:08, 25 January 2021 (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. Hog FarmTalk 15:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete my article. I worked really hard on it and it is my first article I ever made or spent all my time on. The game the article is based on a new game however it does have a cult following. The game is very notable in how you get to see every new update and see how the game is growing from a one room area to a place that could hold up to Club Penguin if u just give it time. And if the game ever takes off and gets more popular I would want people to be able to look at my article and learned how it started. I am working on this article everyday and I don't want all my hard work to go to waste. So please i'm begging you do not delete it! Also I just want to know why is my article being nominated anyway. All the reasons I'm getting is kinda vaig. So can you tell me what i and doing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to draft until GNG-worthy sources arise and are added to the article. BD2412T 21:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok I did. Do I remove the warning that is on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft space is not meant to hold non notable topics indefinitely. Considering it's been three years since this release, there's no indication that it will be notable nor that it is now. And it was repeatedly move warred into mainspace, which is why we are here now. CUPIDICAE💕 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--
Box Critters has a growing community, it doesn't have much sources so it would need to be sent back to draft but it's still a relevent and significant article. I can fix some of the issues myself but I don't see why the article should be deleted only to be recreated in a few months once the game gains media gravity.
Return to Draft until multiple issues are fixed incl sources and wording. PascalsCalculatingHamster (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated and added many sources to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDraftify Theres already a functioning Fandom-Wikia page on this, and this article copies that style. Wikipedia is not a game manual, and this game has not been proven to be notable yet. As well, everything below the lead is unsourced/poorly sourced and WP:FANCRUFT. D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!) 01:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the only reason why there is no sources is because whenever I put sources they keep taking them down. Ik having a source that redirects to Twitter may not look good however that is where 90% of Box Critters news comes from. And I dont see how it would be un reliable if it was the creator of there own game. That's like not being allowed to make your own game or show. Also something I found out, why does Flip the Frog have there own article? He isn't a notable character. And its not a game manual. I am just giving info on this new game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleMAHER1: RocketSnail's Twitter is not verified, and therefore is an unreliable source. To cite Twitter, the account must be verified. This rule is in place because otherwise, people could tweet stuff from their personal Twitter account and cite it on Wikipedia. That’s why only verified Twitter accounts are allowed. I’ll look into the other article as well. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pr alternatively delete per above. Also WP:TNT: Lots of trivial information that is unlikely to pass WP:GAMECRUFT or sourceable through reliable sources. IceWelder [✉] 20:28, 30 January 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only trivially passes WP:NFOOTBALL with 17 mins of football. Does not pass any reasonable interpretation of WP:GNG; this and this were the best that I found and both are just name checks in match reports. Please note that the rally driver Tamás Turi (Turi Tamás) is a different person as per this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, which is far more important than a technical scraping by with one appearance on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, it is time for us to stop being footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2021 (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. There is pretty much an even split for Keep or Redirect/Merge here, which of course is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Eversole (DE-404). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor". the second ship was named after the first which was sunk in action, not after him) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Eversole (DE-404) . If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:PamD most of these short namesake bios come from the DANFS entry about the ship (here for Eversole: [8]) and so they should all be on the relevant ship page already. regards Mztourist (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist: "Should" but in the cases I've looked at there is not as much info in the ship page as in the short bio - hence my suggestion of "Merge" not just redirect: where there is content available about the namesake of the ship, the reader should be able to find that content in Wikipedia, whether in the ship article or in a standalone article. PamD 12:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its all in the DANFS page so they can just read it there, or it can be copypasted onto the ship page. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So we should delete and leave a notice for any potentially interested readers to "just go to DANSF"...? I don't think sending people away to other sources is a good business model for WP. Just sayin' - wolf 00:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Andrew - wolf 00:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that having two warships named after him is a "significant award or honor" and thus passes WP:ANYBIO DreamFocus 02:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Eversole (DE-404) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. // Timothy :: talk 02:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Warships are expensive. Being chosen as a namesake of an expensive naval vessel is a form of peer recognition. We acknowledge that peer recognition is a strong notability factor in other fields, like WP:ACADEMIC, and the same should hold true here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in a previous discussion, "there were nearly 400 destroyers built in the Fletcher/Sumner/Gearing classes." As with the submarines (named after fish) and the various coastal patrol boats in WW I (named after just about anything) and Liberty/Victory ships, just coming up with enough names was an effort. This is not a rare distinction: it was a WW II commonplace. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.
This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
The Navy thought enough of him that they named two ships in his honor.
Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too.
As to available sources, it is to be noted that George M. Campbell was part of the same flight, and has a similar AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no discussion of this specific page (nor any of the others below where you've cut and pasted the same comments) in the mass deletion which was closed as a procedural keep. What possible difference would it make if this was marked as the 2nd Nomination? I'll tell you, none whatsoever. He lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS as do most of these single Navy Cross ship namesakes. Spare us the outrage and add RS if they exist. Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It shows the timing and the intent and the out of step process. The nominator knew about the prior nomination, as he had done them both. He chose to omit it.
If it makes no difference, why was it hidden?
Why was that fact suppressed? Answer me that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suppressing anything and your argument is nonsense; posting it to all of these AfDs is borderline DE and definetely PW:POINTY. // Timothy :: talk 12:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Your unsubstantiated Ipse dixit statement should not be confused with an explanation by the nominator.
Not one omission. It was repeated, over and over and over again.
Wholesale deletions require wholesale responses. Every article had related problems. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More nonsense, the nom doesn't have the power to supress anything, everyone knows this, and you still have no sources. // Timothy :: talk 13:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Eversole (DE-404) for the same reasons as all these other Navy Cross honorees. In a sense, it's a reverse case of WP:NOTINHERITED, as nobody would seriously have considered him worthy of his own article if the ships hadn't been named after him. The Navy Cross is a second tier valor medal, and in this case it is more evident than ever that there's nothing to say beyond a very short action description which is certainly already in the ship articles. We do not need to multiply the number of articles simply to pay tribute to people; indeed, we shouldn't do so. A redirect to the the very short narrative in the ship article is enough to inform readers. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only very narrowly meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to 9 minutes of top tier football. Also supported here. A Hungarian search only found trivial coverage like this and this. There is now very, very clear consensus that comprehensively failing WP:GNG is far more important than passing NFOOTBALL on just a few mins of playing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, which is far more important than a technical scraping by with one appearance on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is cases like this that show that our current football notability guidelines are way too broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2021 (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.
I agree with both maintenance tags placed on the article. In my humble opinion, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. It lacks reliable sources covering AudioPorn in depth; most coverage is trivial and AudioPorn is usually not the main subject of the article. For example this article, which is reliable, only shows a passing mention. This source focuses on the subject but 'Full Effect Promo' is not an independent source as it's a promotional service for record labels. My WP:BEFORE search was just coming up with the usual Soundcloud, Discogs, Instagram, Mixcloud, Databeats etc. which any Joe Bloggs can get coverage on. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (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. Sources provided by the keep !vote do not seem to be reliable and would not overturn the overwhelming consensus to delete after analyses by the other !voters. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this guy meets WP:NAUTHOR. I expected to find even just one real review but all I can find are Amazon reviews and goodreads and literally nothing in the way of coverage of the author himself. CUPIDICAE💕 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, coverage not outside Amazon, Goodreads and his website. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of these links helpful in proving notability? I say Keep if so as don't like to see any author deleted.
I thought he might be self-published only, which is fine, but has a legit agent at a big agency and is or has been published by Thomas & Mercer, which are legit and publish big names but are connected to Amazon which is why a lot of his sources probably points to there.
--LostLogin (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2021 (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. Consensus is that improvements made to the article since nomination demonstrate notability. This AfD is also distinguishable from others in that more than one ship was named after the subject, which also makes outright redirection/merging less desirable. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well developed article. Two ships! No compliance with WP:Before. Easily surpasses WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Usernameunique, two warships, an award and more were named after him which are multiple "significant award or honors" and so the subject passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable as above response. --Bduke (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS England (DE-635). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign with no significant award. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor". The USS England (DLG-22) was named after the first ship which had an outstanding combat record sinking 6 Japanese submarines in 12 days, if you look on that page it states "That act caused the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Ernest King, to declare "There’ll always be an England in the United States Navy."") and WP:GNG. Users who state keep above or make accusations of no BEFORE should note that there is no SIGCOV in multiple RS so he is not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this fails SIGCOV. What do you mean by "significant"? Why are you quoting an essay as a rationale for deletion? How do you explain away the multiple ship names, awards in his honors, etc.. as not evidence of notability? How do you explain all of these source Talk:John_C._England#Sources and all of these sources John_C._England#References as "fail GNG"? -- GreenC 04:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I quote both the SOLDIER Essay and GNG. Multiple ships are explained above already if you read it, the 2nd ship is named after the first. Those sources which you only added 30 minutes ago are largely generic, do not feature on the page and still don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are either reliable, or unreliable. There is no "generic" which is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- GreenC 05:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generic is defined as: "characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific" Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails fails SOLDIER. Fails fails GNG. Has significant coverage. When someone has two ships named for them, it is the essence of notability. If the SOLDIER essay can't deal with this, the essay is a failure, and detriment to Wikipedia. -- GreenC 05:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You acknowledge that he fails GNG so you can't say this should be kept. The first ship was named after him, the second ship was named after the first ship. Search for him and you will find there is no SIGCOV in multiple RS about him and so he is not notable, the ships are, he is not. Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I say it fails "fails SOLDIER" ie. the nomination rationale "fails" ie. I disagree with. All of which I thought would be obvious in the context of a Keep vote and not require many words of explanation. BTW significant coverage can be a single word, it is coverage significant enough to demonstrate notability. It has nothing to do with length or type of coverage, GNG is not a game to find sources with lots of words in them. -- GreenC 15:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Fails fails" is not at all clear. So you are saying he passes SOLDIER? How? No SIGCOV cannot "be a single word". I suggest you reread GNG because your comments indicate that you don't understand what it says. Mztourist (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing AfD for over 10 years and know exactly what GNG says and what it means. You are confusing "trivial" with few words. "Most important president in History" is significant coverage. More than 1 word in this case, but hopefully you get the point. Significance can be many things, including 5 foot tall letters on the prow of USN ship. -- GreenC 22:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain then how "significant coverage can be a single word" because that obviously isn't what GNG says. Also explain exactly how he passes SOLDIER and GNG.Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SOLDIER is an essay, if it had community consensus it wouldn't be an essay. It passes GNG on multiple sources Talk:John_C._England#Sources and plenty more beyond that. I consider your inability to comprehend what GNG says to either be an issue of competency or an intentional troll so won't respond further, if you have a question of how GNG works post in the appropriate forum. But I can assure you, there is no word count minimum or maximum for GNG. -- GreenC 04:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know soldier is an ESSAY, that's why SIGCOV in multiple RS is the required standard. Those sources which you just added 20 minutes ago are largely generic, do not feature on the page and still don't amount to SIGCOV. Your inability to justify "significant coverage can be a single word" speaks volumes. Mztourist (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are significant coverage, whatever the weasel word "generic" means. Your inability to recognize GNG has no word limits speaks loud and clear: you do not comprehend GNG. -- GreenC 04:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich coming from the person who says SIGCOV can be a single word... Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are an obvious troll and not sincere. I've given you the benefit of doubt and tried every which way to explain it but your continual trolling just shows you for what you really are, someone to be ignored. -- GreenC 05:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How am I a troll? By pointing out your obviously ridiculous take on SIGCOV? Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A wise man once said, 'Never play chess with a pigeon. They will like it; they will knock over all the pieces; they will fly away and then declare victory.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A wise man once said "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging". Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS England (DE-635). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Article has been vastly improved. NOT the article it was when this AFD started. WP:HEY. Easily surpasses WP:GNG; multiple WP:RS. And the navy considers him to be very important. Two ships and a training facility. "There will always be an England." What else is there to say. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of work was done since the deletion nomination. [9] Plenty of verifiable referenced information about this person to make a decent article with. The navy thought him notable enough for his heroism to name a ship after him, and that's got to count for something. DreamFocus 22:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a per the multiple 'keeps' above. - wolf 00:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An irrelevant technicality as this page was never independently discussed. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. -- GreenC 14:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you know there was a procedural keep on the mass deletion and so pages are being put up individually for deletion. If SIGCOV in multiple RS exists there is plenty of time for them to be added in, if not then they will close as redirect/merge to the relevant ship which is what is occurring in all but a handful of cases. Mztourist (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am frankly shocked, Mztourist, in another AFD on another genuinely notable namesake, didn't you claim that nomination was supported by precedent to delete all articles on namesakes? You failed to acknowledge there had been a procedural keep on a mass deletion. In the interests of civility and collegiality, I urge you to be open and transparent, in every discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which AFD are you referring to? Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominators who do not make a genuinely meaningful effort to comply with BEFORE let down the entire project. Please, if you ever consider nominating another article, be more careful. Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2021 (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.
Delete As I supported deletion of this article in the mass deletion, I still hold it does not meet the inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Lieutenant posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor" and the ship doesn't even have a page) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to a re-created USS Ely (DE-309), and add a line for that cancelled ship to the table at Evarts-class destroyer escort. If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II#E, where he will have to be entered under the "E"'s, as he's currently not on the list. The data regarding the naming of the cancelled ship can be included in the "notes" field. Onel5969TT me 17:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.
This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.
Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too.
This flyer went down with George M. Campbell, which has a similar AFD. And the expansion there suggests what could be done here, with reliable sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:59, 30 January 2021 (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 USS Ebert (DE-768). There is consensus that this should be merged or redirected; I have redirected, but the history is retained if anyone wishes to merge something from it. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Ebert (DE-768). Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Ebert (DE-768). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Ebert (DE-768) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.
This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.
Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:53, 30 January 2021 (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.
Delete one tertiary source is not enough to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Durant (DER-389). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Pharmacist's Mate Third Class posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Durant (DER-389). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Durant (DER-389) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 01:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Durant (DER-389), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.
This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.
Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:35, 30 January 2021 (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. Sandstein 07:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for improving Wikipedia coverage of other areas of the world, but I unfortunately cannot find any evidence that this organization meets our notability guidelines under either name. Was PRODded in 2012, but unfortunately the sourcing isn't there. StarM 17:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced puff piece. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure about the nominators use of "other". Why assume that anyone reading this is not from Vwawa, Tanzania? But, anyway, there is no indication that this is any more than a local pharmacy, which wouldn't warrant an article wherever it was in the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to @Phil Bridger: meant non English speaking/Western areas, which are dominant in English Wikipedia. But point taken re: clumsy phrasing. StarM 22:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable and highly unlikely to be notable even if it could be verified Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:53, 31 January 2021 (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.
Delete a complete failure of both the notability guidelines for soldiers and the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Diachenko. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Watertender 2nd class posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Diachenko per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. // Timothy :: talk 16:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Diachenko, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.
This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Show the sources or shut up and stop complaining about perfectly acceptable procedure. Reywas92Talk 23:13, 2 February 2021 (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.
Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Frederick C. Davis. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Frederick C. Davis per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. // Timothy :: talk 16:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Frederick C. Davis, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.
This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:16, 30 January 2021 (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.
Delete receiving the navy cross by itself is not enough to show notability, and there are no other significant signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Edward C. Daly (DE-17). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Coxswain posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No SIGCOV, no GNG, no notability. SK2242 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Edward C. Daly (DE-17) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 16:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Edward C. Daly (DE-17), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.
This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 30 January 2021 (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 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.
I tried sorting through the cruft here, expecting him to be notable but it doesn't appear to be the case. Much of the claim to notability is greatly embellished and in digging for sources, I came up pretty much empty aside from some minor local coverage and republished interviews and mentions in small time student papers (of the "look at our alumni!" variety) He's played with a lot of notable people (according to him) but that alone does not confer notability, nor does placing as a "finalist" with 150 people in a questionably notable award. CUPIDICAE💕 17:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources do not add up to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs. I looked at every source cited in the article, and excluded bios from schools he attended and self-published sources. A few sources had some biographical info, such as [10][11][12]], but as interview articles, they are primary sources. The only secondary biographical source in the list was this in a local newspaper. I'm just not seeing significant coverage, and nothing to support notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Creator has also added this to date and year articles with multiple references, none of which support the date of birth. Several were duplicates - abridged versions of interviews/articles that had already been published on other websites. Deb (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2021 (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.
WP:BLP of a comedian, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for comedians. The sole "reference" here is his IMDb profile, which is not a notability-clinching source in and of itself in the absence of any journalist-written coverage about his career in real media -- and even on a search for better sources, literally all I can find is the presence of his name in a handful of entertainment event calendar listings, which are not notability-bolstering sources either. And the strongest notability claim here, a Canadian Comedy Award nomination, would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but is not highly mega-notable enough to grant him an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of a properly demonstrated WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, and we need to stop running BLPs that lack any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A few standard source searches are providing no significant coverage; does not meet WP:BASIC. North America1000 14:28, 2 February 2021 (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.
Completely unsourced article about a broadcasting company, not making any claim to passing WP:NCORP. The company operates non-notable digital services that were offered solely on digital subchannels and the internet, so there can be no automatic presumption of notability on WP:BCAST grounds in the absence of any reliable source coverage about it in real media. I can easily find verification of this company's existence in press releases and other primary sources that aren't support for notability, but I can find absolutely no coverage about it in real media independent of itself for the purposes of getting it over WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH -- but the notability test for companies is the reception of media coverage about their business activities, not just the ability to verify that they exist(ed?). In truth, I'd have speedied this for not even containing a properly sourced notability claim in the first place, but it's been flying under the radar for over a decade and I don't feel comfortable arbitrarily speedying an article that's been around for that long. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2021 (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.
WP:BIO1E known only for being assassinated. (t · c) buidhe 16:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Mehmet Baydar was a consul general in LA and even if he wasn't assassiniated he deserves an article in 6 million-article WP. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomats below the rank of ambassador are almost never notable because their position does not tend to attract coverage in independent RS. Nor does that appear to be the case for this individual. (t · c) buidhe 17:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people do not "deserve" articles in Wikipedia, because they are not earned. Diplomats below the level of ambassador are almost never notable (we have lots of articles on such that probably should be cleaned out, but such takes awhile). Even ambassadors are not default notable, and we have over the years deleted several articles on ambassadors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not the person itself, but the incident, the attack seems notable to me. And we can merge the articles of the people who were assasinated and create an article for the attack. I can see some sources in English ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) and there are a lot of independent and reliable sources in Turkish language obviously.--Nanahuatl (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The incident itself seems notable, the assasin's article has already so much content and for the assasination, there are enough information and sources to have a seperated article, I believe. On the other hand, the diplomats don't seem notable to me since there are only sources related with the assasination.--Nanahuatl (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe "deserve" is not the right word. But en-WP is a 6 million-article encyclopaedia and with this very wide covarage a consul general in LA is notable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If he was notable as a consul, you would be able to find significant coverage of his activities in independent sources published prior to his death. I see no evidence of that. (t · c) buidhe 06:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge The page itself appears to be notable for events, however, due to its coverage is lacking for an article and the person is only known for one event; I suggest redirection to the assassin's page or a new page that's opened for event, and transfer of citations and informations between pages.Ahmetlii (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to create a new page for the event as stated by WP:BIO1E. There are plenty of sources as mentioned above. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 14:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transform: into an article about the event. As is it fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. The person is BLP1E but the event is notable. // Timothy :: talk 03:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Murder/assassination of Mehmet Baydar and redirect Mehmet Baydar to this article. A murder of a diplomat due to an ethnic conflict as to me would clearly merit an article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well an article on the event would also help the Gourgen Yanikian article. In an article about the event the reactions of the different parties (Armenia, USA and Turkey) could be clarified much better and less compromising the info about the person itself which at least at Gourgen Yanikian is already quite elaborate and fairly sourced. What about upgrade the redirect?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2021 (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.
WP:BIO1E known only for being assassinated. (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Bahadır Demir Baydar was a consul in LA and he deserves an article (even if he wasn't assassiniated) in 6 million-article WP.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomats below the rank of ambassador are almost never notable because their position does not tend to attract coverage in independent RS. Nor does that appear to be the case for this individual. (t · c) buidhe 17:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge The page itself appears to be notable for events, however, due to its coverage is lacking for an article and the person is only known for one event; I suggest redirection to the assassin's page or a new page that's opened for event, and transfer of citations and informations between pages.Ahmetlii (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transform: into an article about the event. As is it fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. The person is BLP1E but the event is notable.
Move to Murder/assassination of Bahadir Demir and redirect Bahadir Demir to this article. As to m account, an assassination of a diplomat due to an ethnic conflict merits an article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2021 (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.
Delete This article managed to cross AFC threshold but lacks notability and appears autobiographical. Vikram Vincent 15:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the mention in Vanity Fair offers sufficient notability. Plus, the creator is a COI editor. Vikram Vincent 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think he has enough notability. Even according to FITNY, fashion design is not his main day-job. --Gnosis (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:MILL. There are thousands of part-time clothing designers; we can't give a stub to all of them. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bearian. Atheist (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Author requested deletion under G7, but A7 would have worked as well. — The Earwigtalk 06:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails GNG and related specific notability guidelines. – 2.O.Boxing 14:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G11 and A7. It's just a spam. RationalPuff (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom! Sureee VocalIndia (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent autobiography that fails to show he meets any SNG or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. With no sources or apparent notability, a speedy delete would have been fine--but we might as well finish the AfD (although it looks like WP:SNOW to me). Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2021 (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.
This nomination is a result of VRTS ticket # 2021012310007042, in which Angela Gronenborn has requested that the article be deleted. I am submitting it on her behalf.
I am well aware that she meets NPROF in more than one way, but I think there is a reasonable argument to be made here that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies: Scientists are not inherently public figures – Angela Gronenborn has chosen not to be one. While the article is well written and has no obvious issues, I can empathise with a subject not wanting to be publicised in this manner (and not wanting to be burdened with the task of monitoring the article). I think we should honour this preference, especially since we're looking at a low-traffic, low edit-count (~50 pageviews in December, fewer than 50 edits since creation) article. I want to ask participants in this AfD to consider the request on these grounds instead of debating notability (which is clearly there). From my side, this is a strong delete for the sake of not burdening a low-profile individual. Best, Blablubbs|talk 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fascinating academic who meets NPROF in multiple ways, and thus article has encyclopaedic value. Most of the 1 million biographies are not of public figures. If we deleted them all on request we’re failing to be an encyclopaedia. To that end, BLPREQUESTDELETE also requires that the AfD be a no consensus outcome. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader I'm not debating the encyclopaedic value of this article; I do feel that we have a duty to not do harm or cause distress to article subjects who would like their right to privacy to be honoured. We have a very real and tangible impact on the people we write about; notability should not be the be-all end-all of our considerations at AfD. You are of course correct that we'd be deleting a lot of articles if we batch-deleted biographies of low-profile individuals upon request. The thing is that most people don't mind having a Wikipedia article, and in this case they clearly do. If this was a high-traffic article about someone who had chosen to be in the public eye (or even someone who clearly met GNG, which I don't see as a given here), this would be a different story. Blablubbs|talk 14:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know how prestigious the University of Pittsburgh is, being English, but she seems notable to me and much more notable than the numerous moinor actors,pop stars and beauty queens that seem to fill the pages of wikiopedia.Spinney Hill (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion we should oblige the subject in this instance. The risk that all the non-public figures, or even a substantial fraction of them, will be encouraged to request deletion of their bio appears quite remote. Most people, notable or not, seem quite fond of having a Wikipedia article. Bishonen | tålk 14:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this seems to me to be what WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is for. Public figures don't really get a say in whether they have an article. I think non-public figures should. Both as a point of BLP policy, and as common courtesy. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE has been around for quite a while, and there has been no stampede of such requests. I'm reasonably confident that the user who created the article wouldn't have done so if they'd known the subject objected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see a good reason to ignore her request. And I also think Obapinia would not have created it over the subject's objections (having worked with her on ArbCom). Doug Wellertalk 15:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her positions do not make her a truly public figure, and since she is not a truly public figure we should respect her desire for privacy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have read the OTRS ticket and find the subject's concerns compelling. Yes, she meets NPROF; but NPROF is unique among SNGs in that it is considered to explicitly override GNG rather than to be a shortcut to meeting GNG, and as such someone can be unquestionably notable under NPROF without having received a significant amount of publicity. I appreciate that this guideline exists to further our coverage of academics, who, even when prominent in their field, don't tend to get as much media attention as reality TV stars and the like, but I think in some cases it can lead to BLP issues―these subjects are not necessarily accustomed to the exposure that a page that anyone can edit appearing as the first search result for their name entails. I believe the courtesy deletion request should be honoured. Spicy (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a named professor, member of multiple academic societies, president of a major academic society, etc., the subject does not in any sense have a low profile as an academic. This is not the kind of borderline case that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE can apply to. We should have articles on all academics at this level, regardless of their preferences. And the arguments above that "WP:PROF is special and therefore we should ignore it when we want to" make no sense and are not grounded in policy or guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. I wrote this article a few years ago, along with several others on significant figures in protein NMR. I'm not on OTRS and haven't seen the ticket, but I see no reason we shouldn't respect the subject's request. She may not be "low-profile" in an academic sense, but even fairly prominent academics are often low-profile in the sense of public attention. We have lots of coverage gaps on "notable" people with low public profiles, no need to insist on filling this one over the subject's objections. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Being an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences as well as of several other academies already denotes a major scientific figure and in fact a public figure too because of the unique status of the National Academy of Sciences in the American public life. We should never delete articles about subjects with that level of notability. The subject has in fact received a substantial amount of publicity as is easily demonstated by the independent coverage related to her numerous significant awards and honors. Here are a few sample references, just off the top of the basic google search [19][20][21][22]. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply to famous scientists like this one. Nsk92 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously said that I don't think it's sensible to debate this on notability grounds, but I do want to point out that
is an award announcement by the granting organisation
is a lecturer bio of a university she worked at
is an announcement for a talk she held, put out by the organisation that hosted the talk
does appear to be independent, but is not in-depth coverage
In short, none of those could be used to demonstrate that she meets GNG. Blablubbs|talk 19:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at subject's request. Although she passes WP:Prof, the wish of a non-public figure for privacy should be respected. At this moment in history we are seeing the tremendous harm that can be done by social media, and people who wish to avoid social media should be encouraged to. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment It seems contradictory to argue both that the article gives the subject unwanted publicity and that it is low-traffic. Maybe I'm missing something important (it's been a long day), but if I were trying to publicize myself and my Wikipedia article had a page-view count in the tens per month, I'd fire my agent. On a more general note, does anyone else have the feeling that we've been seeing more WP:BLPREQUESTDELETEs of scientist biographies lately? XOR'easter (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that there are a few more requests, mostly from women, and I think that is a good thing. As I said above, more people are starting to realize that social media is a two-edged sword with dangerously sharp edges and they want to get a safe distance away from it. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia isn’t social media, and the same/similar info on this page can be found on the result one above this one when Googling the subject’s name. Not to mention the claim about having to monitor the page for vandalism seems mistaken, not least because there’s been no such thing in 5 years. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Xxanthippe I happen to think that it's a bad thing that certain elements of society harass prominent women merely for being prominent women, to such an extent that it becomes distinctly noticeable that more of these "please hide me from the internet" requests come from women than from men. And I also think that giving in to this pressure and hiding the prominent women from Wikipedia is accomplishing the harassers' agenda for them and is the opposite of what we should want to be doing. I have no access to the OTRS ticket and have no idea whether any of that fits this particular case, but I have some evidence in other cases and strongly suspect it's a more general pattern. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Straw person. Needless to say, if it had not been for the subject's wish I would have voted Strong Keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, women, please listen to Mr. David Eppstein for further instructions on how to live your own life and manage your own affairs. He is a white male and knows more than you do. It's for your own good. (That might normally be too snarky, but anyone who starts off "Unlike Xxanthippe I happen to think that it's a bad thing..." is a jerk and has no right to complain.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to my comment: it's hard to evaluate WP:BLPREQUESTDELETEs without knowing why exactly the subject wishes deletion, particularly when the article content is the same kind of impersonal biography found on a faculty website. Do they fear that having a Wikipedia article makes them seem overly self-promotional? (I could see that for an early-career researcher, but hardly for someone who is already Fellow of everything.) Are they the subject of a harassment campaign? That is serious, but we have measures to deal with it like page protection which they might not be aware of. In this particular case, I'm not sure that Dr. Gronenborn can aptly be called a "low-profile" or "non-public" individual. Being a society president means voluntarily taking a position where one is the public face of an organization with, in this case, thousands of members. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I respect the prof's preference that she not have a Wikipedia article ... but it is simply her preference. She is notable. Is this a case where she's embarrassed that Wikipedia is the first search result? This is a nicely written article; I fail to see how it is an undue burden. I can't read the ticket, but, unlike other BLP tickets, a youthful (or not-so-youthful) indiscretion or legal matter has not been dug up and come back to bite her... Caro7200 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm curious if there is a threshold for NPROF where a (non-public) subject's academic profile is strong enough that it overrides a deletion request? She is cited 40,815 times in 24,799 documents, has a Science article cited 1,138 times, and has an h-index of 108. How high would any of these parameters have to get before we would decline deletion? If he had a similar lack of coverage by the general media, would we honor a request from George Davey Smith, whose h-index is 212? Zhonglin Wang, with 223? JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a co-author on a paper that has been cited 1,482 times (not first author and my other metrics don't compare to Gronenborn's). That makes me think that the work described in our paper warrants coverage on Wikipedia (and it is covered in a Wikipedia article). It does not make me think that I or any of the other authors warrant a Wikipedia page. All these metrics imply to me that Gronenborn's work is notable and I hope it is covered on Wikipedia. I don't think that makes Gronenborn notable enough to override a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I realise WP:NPROF confounds scholarly citation with personal notability, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED! So I guess what I'm saying is that no bibliometric should override WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; the question to ask is whether there are lots of articles about the person that make them a public figure. If someone has the most cited ever paper in a field and doesn't want a Wikipedia article, no problem, we can do an article on that paper. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete private, non-public person and in the spirit of policy. The way to combat Wikipedias systemic bias and gender gap is not to force women into the spotlight who don't want to be there, it's to acknowledge the bias and do better and you know, actually listen to women, not force the spotlight onto private individuals who are not otherwise notable aside from one archaic guideline that is Wikipedia specific. CUPIDICAE💕 14:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguous pass of WP:NPROF C3 and C5, and I think it's also pretty strong for C1. I take WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as intended for somewhat marginal cases, and I don't see anything marginal here at all. I disagree that university professors are not public figures -- part of the job is to be famous in a low-key and localized manner. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, WP:NPROF is met, but that's not what WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE asks. It asks whether the person is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure". In clicking around to figure out exactly what that meant, I wound up at WP:LPI and the section on Eminence caught my attention. I'm no expert on the world of academia, but from what I understand it's expected that a person who's been around this long has racked up triple-digit publications and a strong handful of chairs and other titles. The subject here may be an expert in her field, but how well-known is she outside of her field? From what I can tell she's gone out of the way to be as private a person as she can given the field she's chosen to work in, and my reading of the OTRS ticket does nothing to dissuade me from that. This isn't a situation where notability needs to overcome the deletion policy. The deletion policy has simply thrown the tiebreaker in the article subject's favor, where "no consensus" here means "delete", rather than "status quo", and the community can make its decision, as it always has. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's expected that a person who's been around this long has racked up triple-digit publications and a strong handful of chairs and other titles. Longevity isn't the same thing as influence. Not everyone who's hung around gets elected president of a scientific society, elected to the NAS, chosen to be a Fellow of the RSC, etc. We're talking about a really strong set of recognitions here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. In general I would oppose this request but the reasons laid out have convinced me that we should honor it in this case and remove the article. -- Danetalk 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a complete rewrite or delete and rewrite. A google search brings up too much biographical information, including recent major awards, to be considered a very private person rather than an important scientist. Someone googling her will find a large amount of material, not just our Wikipedia article:
"Congrats to Angela M. Gronenborn from the University of Pittsburgh, the 2020 winner of the E. Bright Wilson Award in Spectroscopy for pioneering work on the development of NMR spectroscopy for determining 3-D structures of biological macromolecules in solution and extraordinary service to the chemistry community. (American Chemical Society)"
Our article, however, doesn't say what those google results say. Instead it focuses on her work with a colleague who is her former husband. He is also listed as an influence on her in the infobox, the usual insulting idea that if a woman and a man work together, the ideas must have come from him. Her former husband's article doesn't even mention her. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I am aware that the subject passes WP:NPROF. However, given that she is relatively unknown outside of her field, the request should be honored. ExRat (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article doesn't mention (except in the infobox) that she is a member of the US National Academy of Science, which it should. Since she accepted this, I don't think she can really claim to be a wholly private figure. Her university carries a similar bio. If we delete this, it feeds claims of gender bias. If the ex-husband issues are the problem, they should perhaps be adjusted. Johnbod (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. This isn't someone who is a widely known figure, so whether or not they pass WP:NPROF we should honour the subject's request. stwalkerster (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and as per the reasoning of multiple editors above. As a professor myself, I feel WP:NPROF is relatively easy to pass. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE refers to "relatively unknown, non-public figures", so what counts as "relatively unknown, non-public"? I'd say someone who fails WP:GNG and this person appears to fail WP:GNG. Ergo, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, ergo we respect the request. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the many other rationales already listed above. As Blablubbs stated earlier, it's important to consider that there absolutely is an impact on the people whom we write about. Perryprog (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2021 (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.
While claiming to be a secondary school, it is a K-9, which in the US would be classified as an elementary/middle school. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me 12:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my longstanding standards for schools. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. Sources in the article are not IS, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the type all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 04:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage that addresses the school directly and in depth Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 1 February 2021 (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.
This term was originally used as a joke in a The Far Side comic for the spikes on the tails of Stegosaurs. As an anatomical feature exclusive to stegosaurian dinosaurs, it has no separate notability from the main Stegosauria article. The term is notable enough that it should be redirected to the appropriate section of the article.Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that in many stegosaurians there is a smooth gradiation between plates and spikes, so the "thagomiser" concept does not represent a clear anatomical term that applies to all stegosaurs. As can be seen in this skeleton of Kentrosaurus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect - while it is not notable enough to be a standalone article, it should redirect to stegosaur, where it is already discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It has detail on the etymology and applications on mathematics, which are outside the scope of the Stegosauria article. Keeping them separate might be better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with keep on that. DS (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an application to mathematics. It is just that a student wrote an article involving a graph that looked like this shape and hence decided to import the term, and then that student wrote another article with some co-authors reusing the term. Not a good reason to keep the article. Ebony Jackson (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not fully correct; the term has been used by a number of papers also by different authors, [23]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are preprints, which are not useful for determining notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one, for example, [24] is a Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society article, is written by different authors, and has the term "thagomizer" in its title. This makes the use of the term in mathematics notable by all standards we have. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound as if there are many such math papers! In fact, I think there are none beyond the ones co-authored by the student who coined the term and her advisor and the authors of the paper you mentioned. The other papers on Google Scholar that you linked to are about stegosaurs or the Far Side cartoon, not mathematics. There may be other good reasons to have a Thagomizer page, but it is not correct to argue for it based on its significance in mathematics. Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another one if you want: [25]. But in any case, even a single paper already makes it relevant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually another one: it's written by the advisor! Also, where did you get the idea that a single paper on a topic guarantees its appropriateness for Wikipedia? Ebony Jackson (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what WP:N says about whether a single paper is sufficient for notability: "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Ebony Jackson (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then there still are more examples, like this one [26]. And see Wikipedia:Notability, but we are not even talking about a standalone article for this math topic. And in your quote, note the word "should". They should be based on secondary sources where these are available. We have many science articles (look at dinosaurs) which are based on primary sources exclusively, some almost completely basing on a single paper, e.g. Perijá tapaculo. But we are getting out of topic here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not another one either; it is co-authored by Xie like the first one you mentioned, so I stand by my claim. Ebony Jackson (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree that the other dinosaur-related articles brought up recently are unnecessary, but I like this one and its relevance within popular culture and mathematics is IMO enough to justify it as a separate article. There are also bound to be more in-depth studies on thagomizers and stegosaur tails that could be used to expand this article into something longer that also justifies it being separate from the stegosaur article. On a sidenote, I have seen some people refer to the tail spike-arrangements of certain glyptodonts (Doedicurus) as "thagomizers" as well, but that is something that appears to have not made it into the literature yet. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. With respect to the mathematics vote: two published math papers have used the term "thagomizer matroid". There's no secondary commentary on etymology in either paper. It's a cute in-joke, but this is not a good indicator of notability. --JBL (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It has enough notability as it is, likely more so now that it entered a certain pop culture franchise. Besides, even if it isn't accurate it at least remains an object of historicla interest. --Bathornis — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC) — Bathornis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support redirect - As mentioned in my comment above, there is no actual application to mathematics. Ebony Jackson (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not being a paleontologist, I'm not the best suited to say whether this article has possibilities for expansion. I think that an endnote at Stegosauria could handle the etymology of thagomizer satisfactorily. The use in mathematics is cute but not really noteworthy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Stegosauria. It is a mildly noteworthy bit of trivia, but the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia articles enjoyable to read. BD2412T 21:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid term for both a unique anatomical feature and a mathematic model. Basically, it meets notability. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is for deletion discussions, not a place to forum-shop merge discussions that didn't go your way. The topic is clearly notable by this title and if it's good enough for the Smithsonian Museum, it's good enough for us. And note that we have articles about other features of the stegosaur – see scute and osteoderm. There have been lots of species and they often have common anatomical features and it's best to describe those separately. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scutes and osteoderms are broader anatomical concepts that apply to many animals, while "thagomiser" is a semi-joke term that applies solely to stegosaurs. If you actually read the palaeontological literature you find that the term "thagomiser" is rarely used by palaeontologists anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable and well-known piece of anatomy for a group of multiple species that, except for having a name derived from a joke, is not different in principle from other topics on pieces of anatomy common only to small numbers of species, like say our articles on monotreme prostates, tiger tails, or parts of horse legs. In fact, the success of the joke from which the name was derived attests to the fact that this is a well-known and therefore notable topic: if it weren't, nobody would have gotten the joke. As for the name, first of all it's irrelevant as it's the underlying topic and not its name for which we need to determine notability, secondly, it seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME now in the absence of any alternative, and thirdly WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I see that, perhaps in response to my comment, User:Reywas92 has boldly merged tiger tail into tiger (see diff). I have no personal opinion on the appropriate organization of our content on tigers into topics and subtopics, and the article as merged did not include any sources specifically on tiger tails that might have established independent notability, but according to Wikipedia:Article size the tiger article is already near the top of the acceptable range for article sizes. I hope this merge was made after due consideration of article size and the notability of that subtopic, and not merely to make a point. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually leaning keep here but haven't made a decision since if merged it would be disproportionate coverage of the non-morphological info within the main article that doesn't need etymology. Tiger tail was a really dumb article that had zero sources about tails in particular, it was just picking out facts from general sources that related to the tail. You could just as easily make an article about tiger heads or tiger skin or whatever from the same sort of sources and have a bunch of subarticles which are not independent topics. Tiger has 52,172 characters of prose and is nowhere near so long materal should not be added. The page already has several subarticles better than split by body part. Reywas92Talk 18:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David Eppstein's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly has cultural significance, and apart from the fact that it's origin was a joke (so what?), the deletion rational seems to be IDONTLIKEIT, which isn't a good enough reason; happy days, LindsayHello 19:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable term, if only b/c of its origin story. Good article, of the sort users hope to find on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The history and culture behind the term makes it relevant by its own, as this is far beyond the scope of the dinosaur-article. Andol (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there really doesn't seem to be any particular justification for deletion. The article is well-sourced and plenty notable. -Grahamdubya (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -as noted by Andrew up above, it doesn't seem there is any honest intent to delete the article, but rather use AfD as an avenue to revisit a merge that even the nominator admits got no traction 4 years ago. Jens also notes multiple published articles above, including one using the term in the title, so I don't think WP:Not is an issue on the math side either. Darquis (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "multiple published articles" in math are, as mentioned above, are all co-authored by the one student who started using it in math, the student's advisor, and Xie. This would not merit inclusion even as a section in a Wikipedia math article (I am coming from the math side of things, not the dinosaur side). I see that there are other reasons to keep Thagomizer as a separate article or not, but to argue based on notability in math is misguided. Ebony Jackson (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons stated above. Rhino131 (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is the subject of multiple sources independent of StegosauriaNovabrahm (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already stated above Steevithak (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2021 (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.
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; the one reference provided in the article is a trivial mention. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing more than the company's own website, social media accounts and other non-RS. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tagged promo since 2015. –Cupper52Discuss! 13:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Strange to see an article created this month, already with an Advertising warning tag dated 2015? Anyway, this is a brochure-like article on a company, lacking in references. Searches are not finding evidence of attained notability for this company (or for the related "Limo Alliance" software. AllyD (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammy, promo-only account creation by SPA doing Spammy referencing in other article too. Per SPAM
Delete per above and WP:MILL. There are thousands of car services throughout the Northeastern United States. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2021 (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. A merge discussion could still theoretically take place. Eddie891TalkWork 14:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issues, since 2012 little evidence in the sourcing that this became an established term, apart from a single Atlantic blog post (from 2012), none of the sourcing meets WP:RS and all originate in 2012. Essentially a single commentator (Bridle) coined this term and tried to push it as an art movement when in actuality it was an extension of internet art commonly referred to as "post-internet." Acousmana (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are two entire books by other authors than Bridle dedicated to the topic. They're cited in the article. Vexations (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the v2L book: New Aesthetic New Anxieties is described as "the result of a five day Book Sprint organized by Michelle Kasprzak and led by Adam Hyde at V2_ from June 17–21, 2012." so essentially a self-published work. The second book, The New Aesthetic and Art: Constellations of the Postdigital, doesn't appear to be cited anywhere in the article itself and seems to be about the broader topic of post-digital and new media art, so not clear it refers specifically to Bridle's 2012 conception. having looked more closely, it does follow NA per Bridle, but reads like a manifesto, again, I would question notability of publication. Acousmana (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
arguably, it's vanity publishing at best, can it be viewed as equivalent to a university press? Acousmana (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acousmana, vanity publishing at best? Are you suggesting the authors paid V2 to publish the book? You know what a vanity press is, I hope? Vexations (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes I know what it is, consider it cynical usage of the term, but do you actually believe they were paid an advance on this? If solely published on academic merit, was it peer reviewed? Quite likely they weren't paid, and they didn't pay anything to have it "published", it's a free book, so something akin to open access research. Can we establish notability for this publication? Acousmana (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acousmana, there is nothing in our notability policy that say that for a subject to be considered notable, the sources themselves also need to be notable. Not just the publisher or the author, but the piece of work itself (the article, book). In this case, the publisher is in fact notable. Not that that is required. Your demand to demonstrate that the authors have received an advance is unreasonable and not supported by any policy. Vexations (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "the sources themselves also need to be notable", the issue is reliability, that's the concern here. Acousmana (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Post-internet, significant overlap, both article would be improved as a result, currently they are both start-class entries. Acousmana (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it was a redirect, i did that, has since been reverted, which is fair enough if editor wishes to improve a stand-alone entry, a merge with 'new aesthetic' would perhaps help in this respect. Ideally, all of this content should be in the article Internet art, rather than having separate entries, the overlap is significant, and from a historical perspective, merging all is warranted. Acousmana (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
missed that, it is the same topic though. Acousmana (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acousmana, if you've changed your mind about deletion and you now want a merge in stead of deletion, withdraw the AfD, close it (per WP:WDAFD) and make a merge proposal instead Vexations (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
let's see if any other input is offered first. Acousmana (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources, per discussion, and a full stand-alone article for a notable topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic is notable, reliable sources exist. Does not make sence to merge as suggested above. Netherzone (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2021 (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. There's a lot of HESNOTABLE going on here, and not a lot of discussion of the reliabiilty of the sources. Thus I am closing this as no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was listed as one of the 19 Apostles of Baha'u'llah and was the author of the clarifying questions in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. He is covered in Smith's Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith on page 369, and A Basic Baha'i Chronology by Glenn Cameron and Wendi Momen. here is a summary of his appearance in the latter. The article is currently poorly written and referenced, but notability shouldn't be a problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Baha'i figure. Glenn Cameron, Wendi Momen and Smith are all Baha'is and they mostly write for the Baha'is. How does the subject qualifies WP:BASIC, WP:GNG or WP:RELPEOPLE?Serv181920 (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are published secondary sources, independent of the subject (in this case, Zaynu'l-Muqarrabin). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are Baha'i published sources, and I don't know how they are independent of the subject!Serv181920 (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable? Yes. Reliable? Yes. Secondary? Yes. Reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Yes. Third party? No. Independent? Mostly yes, because the authors are writing about him for his notability within the Baha'i Faith and they have no personal interest in promoting or disparaging the subject (of Zaynu'l-Muqarrabin). Neutral? They have a bias being Baha'is writing about a Baha'i figure, but they are writing in a dispassionate and factual way (other books about him I didn't list are more promotional). They are not the ideal source but WP:BIAS says they can be used. I think if you read the examples at WP:IS, it is focused on more clear examples of conflict of interest, such as an article written by someone's own company. There are many biographies on Wikipedia that need to be deleted and I usually vote for delete. I think as a general threshold all of the Apostles of Baha'u'llah and Hands of the Cause are an automatic pass on notability and can easily be improved with work. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Religious sources: "In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject."
Keep, notable as one of the main secretaries of Baha'u'llah, the prophet founder of a world religion. Also the questions in "Questions and Answers" , a supplementary to Kitab-i-Aqdas the most holy book for Baha'is, is by him (for more information please see here). Tarikhejtemai (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Direct me to the policy, in order to prove his notability you need to show "significant coverage in reliable sources".Serv181920 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article already has reliable sources. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just cleaned up and reworked the article with more references, which appears to be the first major revision since it was made 10 years ago. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources are Baha'i sources. I understand that a Baha'i historical figure will be cited from Baha'i sources, but there should be some support from other sources in order to prove his notability from "sources that are independent of the subject". If this subject has "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guidelines then it should remain.Serv181920 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are not all Baha'i authors or Baha'i publishers, and even if they were, his notability can still be established by the breadth of significant coverage by many academic Baha'i authors. As mentioned above, "In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject." That is why there is an article on Barnabas. Also the subject here is Zaynu'l-Muqarrabin, and most of those authors are independent of him, except in a very narrow sense that they are of the same religion. Also here's a quote from you while trying to promote the notability of an apostate from the Baha'i Faith: "his mention in Baha'i books and magazines, his service to 'Abdu'l Baha as a secretary for 2 years [makes him notable]". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep - The new edits have improved the article but all sources are Baha'i. I suggest adding non-Baha'i sources. However, if no non-Baha'i sources are found then this person might not be notable enough and only relevant to internal Baha'i circles. Illuminator123 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, I see many non-Baha'i publishers and sources, e.g. Brill, Iranica, etc. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one neutral source, Margrit Warburg, and she only states a sentence about the subject. Iranica article is written by Moojan Momen, who is also a Baha'i but that source is acceptable.Serv181920 (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is also described by the British Library, where they have an original copy of the Kitab-i-Aqdas in his handwriting. [27]Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī(talk) 20:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion, this seems to fail WP's Onursides (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ This account was created today. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient reliable, independent coverage. The WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments above are not convincing and nobody has demonstrated any significant coverage in independent sources. --IWI (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this idea that any Baha'i source is non-independent is incorrect per WP:IS#Biased sources: "A source can be biased without compromising its independence. When a source strongly approves or disapproves of something, but it has no connection to the subject and does not stand to benefit directly from promoting that view, then the source is still independent... What matters for independence is whether they stand to gain from it."
There is wide coverage of Zaynu'l-Muqarrabin among Baha'i authors and publishers that are objectively reliable sources with bias, but they are not benefiting from writing about him. For example Peter Smith's A Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith decided to biography him with the same independence that Christians have writing about Barnabas. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Easily so, numerous published sources by various authors and maintained interest over time. Baha'i sources are the experts in this area plus Iranica mention has been used in other recent discussions to help decide notability. More sources include:
which continue to highlight interest in his contributions to the religion. Smkolins (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This subject has not received significant coverage in non-Baha'i sources. Only Baha'is sources mentions some details about him, not sure if that is sufficient for a standalone article. Above two sources are also Baha'i sources.Serv181920 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Brill and Iranica further mentioned above are _not_ Baha'i sources. I offered the additional sources partly showing continued interest. Smkolins (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MacEoin's Messiah of Shiraz (published by Brill) mentions him throughout and includes most of the details in the article. The book costs $300 but you can search keywords in Google books and get the sentence for contexthere. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very well cited, notability seems to be shown through plenty of reliable sources including several independent ones. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 09:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - due to transcription differences, I didn't notice this before, but E.G. Browne gave him a brief biography in his notes to A Traveller's Narrative[28]. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At the above link, Brown states that the information he has about Zayn is "very scanty". The other item you cited about him from Brown also is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, a book of 360 pages only mentions one sentence about him. I could find only one sentence about him in MacEoin's "The Messiah of Shiraz" on Page 393. The book has 780 pages and it mentions Mulla Zayn only once, this is also WP:TRIVIALMENTION. This entire article is sourced from Baha'i sources (except may be 3-4 sentences).Serv181920 (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted Browne deceptively, he says his information, "is, unfortunately, very scanty" because he didn't get to meet him in person. Browne dedicates several paragraphs to him because he was the main person behind the copying and distribution of early Baha'i manuscripts and he wanted to document more on him. He quoted several of Zaynu'l-Muqarrabin's codophons (transcription signatures) and analyzed them. Even before Browne's mention came up, the article was well cited. Browne, along with the British Library, mentions in several non-Baha'i sources, and fairly widespread coverage in independent Baha'i authors should satisfy notability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those "several paragraphs" are about his MSS not about him. And your statement "MacEoin's Messiah of Shiraz (published by Brill) mentions him throughout and includes most of the details in the article." is an absolute lie.Serv181920 (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My link above to Messiah of Shiraz no longer shows what I saw previously, and I can't make the search appear that way again. Now I can tell it was showing me results for several books but looking like it was showing me results for Messiah of Shiraz. Very odd software hiccup (or user error!). Anyway I crossed out my comment above, and the article still has notability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:50, 5 February 2021 (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 Galata Tower was built in 1348 and "historical" sources don't mention of any earlier tower in the location of this tower. Genoese people started to build the walls of Galata in 1335, so there were no wall before that date nor a tower. This source (unfortunately in Turkish, but at least it has an English abstract) clearly says that there are no historical reference for an earlier tower, and the source of this "myth" became anonymous. It also says that a castle in Karaköy called "Castrum Sancte Crucis" (Holy Cross Castle) had a tower, called "Turris Sancte Crucis" (Holy Cross Tower) and since the Galata Tower was called "Turris Sancte Crucis" as can be seen on this map, some sources got confused and mixed the history of the current tower and the tower of that castle which was demolished during the earthquake of 1766. Therefore, no reason to have an article of a building that had never existed or never had a reliable historical reference. Nanahuatl (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the evidence suggests this was never a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A number of sources make mention of an older tower (Megalos Pyrgos or Great Tower) used as the northern anchor of a chain raised across the Golden Horn first mentioned by Emperor Leo III in the 8th century and largely destroyed by the crusaders (Fourth Crusade) in 1204. See, e.g., [29] (already cited in the article), [30], [31]. A number of these references point to Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991), Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, p. 815, ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but it's the tower of a castle on the coast of the Golden Horn :) I have just added more information. And since the Galata Tower is on a hill, it doesn't seem logical to use that tower for the chain that blocks the sea located tens of meters below, does it? :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Great Tower of Galata as suggested below. The older tower existed and is notable per the references I cited. That it likely was located 50 meters away from the present tower does not affect its notability. 24.151.121.140 (talk)
Comment: Even if the tower likely never existed I think it could still warrant an article if the myth is widespread enough, we already have articles for some things like that such as BelobogPladica (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is @Pladica:, some sources got confused about two different buildings which existed in the same time, they basically mix their histories. This old "Galata Tower" was just a tower of an early Byzantine fortress called "Kastellion" (the remains of the fortress has became the Underground Mosque). Basically, almost all the content of the article is wrong, and I don't think the tower of that fortress is notable. What we can do is that we create an article of the mosque, mention about the former fortress and its tower, that's all.--Nanahuatl (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Great Tower of Galata (the literal translation of the Greek name). This was clearly an important feature of the defences of Constantinople, as operating the chain that controlled access to the Golden Horn (harbour). It would be appropriate to have a single article on that defensive boom, and this can be it. It is not merely one tower of a city wall, which would not be separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron:, I don't know why we should use the Greek name instead of the Latin name that was given by Genoese people (people that built the tower and controlled it all the time), but, the tower itself doesn't seem notable. As I said, the remains of the fortress still exist as a mosque. So per WP:AS, the mosque article should be created first, if the old castle part becomes too long, this can be a seperated article. The chain was tied to the fortress, not its tower.--Nanahuatl (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanahuatl: Have you been able to find any sources on the mosque itself? (I'm presuming that it still stands today). If so, then a paragraph about the mosque can be added, and then the information on the old tower can be included as a subsection. I think the situation is pretty similar to that of Hagia Sophia, with the whole function of the building changing over time. Keivan.fTalk 08:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f:, the mosque is definetely notable. If the history of that becomes too long, we can create the castle article. But the tower definetely doesn't look notable, at least as far as I can see.--Nanahuatl (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The I guess we can either delete or at least redirect this page to the one about Galata Tower, and create a separate article on the mosque. Keivan.fTalk 21:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability require significant coverage from two independent reliable secondary sources that address the subject directly and indepth. If two such sources with direct and indepth information about the subject had been found, experienced editors would not be wondering if the subject actually existed (physically or metaphysically) or it would be clear there is a academic debate about its existence. If the article cannot pass this mark, it definitely cannot pass the notability threshold. Articles have to clearly identify their subjects: if sources cannot do this, they do not meet SIGCOV.
I think some of the above good faith discussion is inadvertantly entering SYNTH territory.
Intentionally not a !vote, I'm open to being convinced. // Timothy :: talk 20:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue:, it was my mistake actually, I couldn't express myself clearly. The "myth" is that some sources confuse two irrelevant towers in Galata, because they share the same historical name ("Holy Cross Tower", because they both had a cross on their rooftops). What this article suggests that the Latins had destroyed this "Galata Tower" (no historical reference for this name), that it was the mark of the northern end of the great chain (no, it was the castle, not the tower) etc. What I suggest here is to delete this article that is full of wrong information and if one day, someone created the article of the mosque or the castle that I mentioned above, we can also mention from this "Holy Cross Tower". Right now, almost all of the content is wrong, maybe, after I complete my work in the Turkish Galata Tower article, I can create one of them ("Kastellion'un kulesiyle karıştırılması" section is about the confusion between the current Galata Tower and this tower that was demolished during the 1776 earthquake).--Nanahuatl (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Galata Tower. Not enough info as a standalone article. Maybe merging the info here into the history section seems reasonable. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per cavetownfan; it would be a better way to organize the content in both articles. ~EdGltalk 18:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain since Nanahuatl has cast doubt on the veracity of the article and I'm not about to become a scholar on Byzantine history to make heads or tails of this. :) ~EdGltalk 00:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per cavetownfan. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CAVETOWNFAN:, @EdGl:, @SpareSeiko:, literally everything is wrong in the article. Besides there were two different towers throught the history, adding the wrong information to the Galata Tower article won't do anything good. Even if we add, I'll have to remove because they're basically wrong :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2021 (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.
Nothing about the company at all, unsourced list of people who use its products, which is not a criterion for notability either for companies or music as far as I know. No refs, just a link to the company website, seems to have no function other than to promote the brand. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added 3 sources, book and website. Would that be enough? I claim to have no COI with this company ! Barakafrit2 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm not sure about the book entry, but the first review is not from a reliable sources and the second is a passing mention. If it had been a feature article on the amps or the company, that would have mad a difference in my opinion. My Google search reveals entries from a lot of music stores, fan forums and sales sites (like ebay). https://www.gearnews.com/manufacturer/hughes-kettner/ lists some of the company's recent press releases. If they had listed other sources, that too would have made a difference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWalter Görlitz, an Amazon book review is not RS, and is flagged up as unreliable by the script too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The publisher of the book is Voyageur Press. Just because the link in the article is to Amazon does not mean it's an Amazon book review. I found it on Google books and the half-page review of one pedal doesn't change my !vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (not sure how to express that...). I tried to expand the article, spend already some time on it, but I realize that it is pretty hard to find good secondary sources. I also changed the Amazon link to Google books (@Walter Görlitz, I never meant that to suggest it was a Amazon review, it was just a link).
So, what's next? Do you guys (watching here) think it will be deleted? Because if you think so, then I'll just stop working on it. I'm not administrator so I am powerless, but what puzzles me is: why that one and not.. at least half of the other articles referenced on Category:Guitar_amplifier_manufacturers ! Because they either are already tagged as "refimprove" or "Unreferenced" or, if not already tagged, have little or no sources (and many are of way less notoriety that H&K, trust me. Oh, no, don't trust me, instead search these brands on any online musical instruments store.)
So, shall you guys also delete these too?
I must admit I am quite confused, because I have the feeling that the H&K article has its place on WP, compared to many of these articles. So why would one delete H&K?
Thanks for sharing your views.
PS: And, again, (but that seems to be important so I restate that): I have no COI with that brand !
The two new references still do not help. I looked at the listed articles and PRODed all but one of them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SK2242: Of course you are right, but that is not what I meant. What I meant is "why don't you tag the pages I linked for deletion?". It would be logical if you support deletion of this one. Why aren't the pages tagged as unverified also nominated for deletion (real question!)Barakafrit2 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I see pages holding references such as "That-magazine, 1982, page X", with no link, unverifiable (ping me, I'll provide!). And you accept that, instead of sources with a link? This could be understood as "go on, just add some dummy reference like "Guitar Player, november 1982, issue 73, page 132", but I don't do that kind of thing. (and, sorry, but I am not experienced enough to know what "PRODing" a source is).
So, guys, just do as you feel, but I don't get it. I think I've spent enough time on this, I've tried to do my best but seems not enough, so bye. I hope you'll never have to complain about the lack of honest volunteers on WP. Because this only started because I mentioned this page as a comparison with another brand whose page got (again) deleted by User talk:Jimfbleak when I attempted to create it. He kindly explained the reasons to me (which I'm ok with), but also, as a reaction (?), he tagged this one for deletion, and here we are. So I thought that I might as well try to improve this one (which is what I did), to gain some experience. Apparently, I failed (?).Barakafrit2 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, User talk:Walter Görlitz, just noticed you did tag for deletion the pages I linked above (and I now know what PROD means). All... but one, as you say (Paul_Cornford). And, just guess, what makes that page different from the others (besides being a 3 lines article, of course...)? Answer: it holds some unverifiable sources! So, that seems ok for you, apparently. Ok, granted. But let me say this is a real problem, because it directly encourages fake sources on WP.Barakafrit2 (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the links we send your way. I linked WP:RS as "reliable sources". It will explain what a reliable source it. In short, a reliable source is determined by who created the source and how it was created, not whether we can or cannot access it from our computers. For instance a 1982 Guitar Player edition is not likely online. It is likely a reliable source. The individual article will determine if it is reliable or not. If it's just a press release or similar, then it's not. If it's a passing mention, or a short review, then that does not help to confer notability on the subject.
As for lack of honest volunteers, we recognize that there's a learning curve. I saw many articles that I tried to improve get deleted until I understood what the project was trying to create and by what criteria we determined whether a subject was or was not notable. I would understand it if you tucked your tail and ran. It might make more sense to eitehr change the criteria for musical instrument companies, or other category, or just continue to look for reliable sources for these companies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz:
Hello, sorry for being late in my answer.
I just wanted to comment back on your last message, because I'm afraid it does not address my point.
First, thank you for your time you took to consider my views and explaining how things work.
Yes, I fully understand what a reliable source is, and I am ok with the main idea, sure. Online doesn't mean its reliable.
But you didn't address the point that theses sources (yes, I'm talking about the ones that are on Paul_Cornford, but that is just an example) are unverifiable.
Oh, well it could be (by requesting/buying/searching the old magazine paper issues. But who's gonna do that, seriously?
So, what am I supposed to learn here?
Up to here, my answer is that WP administrators are ok with that kind of sources (if your views are shared with the others, condition which I consider true up to here).
I personally feel that this is some kind of issue, because that means that:
1-some pages can be edited/created with completely fake sources that nobody is going to check, as I have told above, and be considered perfectly valid !
Although some online sources won't be, because their content about the topic is just some "passing mention", as you say.
2-some (potentially real) sources can be irrelevant.
How about these off-line sources?
How can I judge if they are not just some "short review", or "press release" (in that case, I'd make a bet on the fact that it is, precisely!).
You did not tag that page for deletion like the others but you probably didn't have access to theses sources to check if they fulfilled the requirements:
as you can't, I must believe you just assumed they are... Seriously?
So I must acknowledge the fact that you guys probably consider that this is unavoidable and that you just bet on people's honesty. Well, why not, but I don't think it is a good idea.
Barakafrit2 (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources available. I'm just going to run off and improve the article. When Music Radar says the Rotosphere is one of the best effects pedals of its kind,[32] it behooves us to sit up and take notice. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty more sources available; I did a Google News search for "Hughes & Kettner amp review" and it brought back loads of things. It'll just take a while to work them into the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's interesting to find out where Walter Görlitz's PRODs came from. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:00, 3 February 2021 (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.
This one has me stumped. I'm unable to find any clear, non-WP online mentions of any of this person's listed writings, nor do any have entries in WorldCat or other library databases I've searched. Reference 2 is to issue 53 of Fortean Times, but that issue's table of contents contains no evidence of anything about Devot. I don't have access to the archives of The Times, so I can't check the apparent obituary cited in reference 1; but I'd appreciate any help in verifying it. Unless someone else can find coverage of this person in reliable sources, the article would appear to fail WP:GNG. Deor (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of some of the Ghost Box–related material that mentions Devot, but I'm dubious that such mentions constitute either significant coverage or reliable sources. For all I can tell from them, he could be a fictitious character. Deor (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, that the refs I mentioned are not enough, hence the requirement for The Times obituary.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked further into this and cannot find any sigcov. The author, if he existed, was very obscure and would not probably pass WP:NAUTHOR anyway.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2021 (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.
This is one of a number of fancruft DCI articles lightly sourced to its own website, the DCI website, and non-RS live event streamers and drum corps fan blogs. A BEFORE on JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News and Google Books finds no substantive mentions, merely appearances in performance lists and incidental mentions. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep:, as per nom, this article is lightly referenced to its own website. However, there is an extraordinary summary of 45 years of performances which has referencing. Covid-19 halted the last season. So, keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Covid-19 halted the last season. So, keep." I won't argue it, but I will say that's the most novel !vote in an AfD I've seen! Chetsford (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891TalkWork 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect? per nom. I don't see enough coverage about this team to justify a stand-alone article, but a list article of DCI teams may be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe that more sources could perhaps be drawn upon, but this corps has become one of the main 12 corps in Drum Corps International these past few years Why? I Ask (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this corps has become one of the main 12 corps in Drum Corps International these past few years Though a great achievement, this is not a policy-based argument for retention. Chetsford (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The argument for deletion could realistically be made for any individual drum corps however, there exists too much information on each drum corps in their individual pages including a list of every known show and repertoire for each, history, traditions, titles, uniforms, etc. to justify removing one or all pages and consolidating them to a single article. Information from individual wikipedia pages are referenced widely across the drum corps community including in official media and amongst social circles. Ultimately, the presented argument could be made for ANY individual drum corps, but too much relevant information exists in the Crossmen page and in the other corps pages (and nowhere else as easily, as history, traditions, and show information is almost impossible to reliably find elsewhere) as well to fully justify deletion or redirection. Bioplarcomposer (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the presented argument could be made for ANY individual drum corps" That's my plan. Chetsford (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Going through and deleting all of the drum corps pages one by one disenfranchises an entire community of hundreds of thousands of people that follow a usually very active activity. Plus, see my argument for keeping as to why each page SHOULDN'T be deleted. Also, as much as they are a blight on the community, scandal articles follow GNG: https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/drum-corps-george-hopkins-joel-moody-cadets-crossmen-sexual-misconduct-20180515.html. There is typically a local or regional news article for every corps at founding, a championship win, when there's a scandal, or whenever someone/something particularly "general interest" about the group wins the uplifting news lottery that week. It's also very much worth arguing that just because Halftime Mag or Flo Marching are activity-affiliated does not invalidate them from being "independent coverage" per GNG. See: https://halftimemag.com/tag/crossmen-drum-and-bugle-corps. Their content is often original journalism. I don't see Autoweek magazine blacklisted as a source on NASCAR articles, for example. Similarly, http://www.dcxmuseum.org is an independent site with no organizational affiliations to dci/dca/individual groups that I know of. That does not make it inherently "generally notable", but does address that this information is considered valuable and worth archiving, and as of now Wikipedia is the most comprehensive and reliable source for this information that exists. There's also a web of personae connected to Crossmen (and every other group) through various bios, sponsor notices, staff announcements, etc. See: https://www.yamaha.com/artists/andrewmarkworth.htmlBioplarcomposer (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is typically a local or regional news article Sources must be demonstrated, not simply asserted. That does not make it inherently "generally notable", but does address that this information is considered valuable and worth archiving Please see what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. There's also a web of personae connected to Crossmen (and every other group) through various bios, sponsor notices, staff announcements, etc. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.
Finally, try to not !vote multiple times, for the convenience of the closer. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The keep arguments are some of the least compelling I've seen in a long while, but without any further contribution from other Wikipedians, this is heading towards the meekest 'no consensus' close...hoping for increased contribution from other, established editors referencing policies and guidelines with a bold third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of DCI drum corps. This should be part of a larger merge discussion concerning all the drum corps on that list page. They seem to be a middling team (29 finals, but 12 teams make the finals, and they've never won) with some weak, local-only coverage, so not convinced that this should be a standalone article, but conveniently there's an article this can be merged into. I foresee instead of List of DCI drum corps being a table, it can have a subsection for each team, and then all the team articles (except potentially the notable winning teams) merged/redirected there. ~EdGltalk 04:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This should be part of a larger merge discussion concerning all the drum corps on that list page." I think redirect is a fine idea and I have no fundamental issue with the merge proposal, in theory, however, to implement a merge in a silo - absent the larger discussion mentioned - would result in the merged-to article consisting of a list of every drum corps that simply contained its name, except for Crossmen which would have paragraphs upon paragraphs of text. Chetsford (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I think we can do (and I volunteer to do) is to carefully copy content from those other articles and paste into the list article. Then we can evaluate the other articles (keep as standalone or redirect to the list page) on a case-by-case basis, using the result of this AfD as a precedent. Or we could just go the route of proposing a merger. Either way, Wikipedia is a work in progress, so a temporarily unbalanced page should be a non-issue. ~EdGltalk 15:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on EdGl's volunteering to merge the content of 50 individual pages into the single, list page and then AfD them all I have no problem with supporting with Redirect and Userfying this page to allow that to occur. Chetsford (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before search couldn't provide impressive references. The actress worked on supporting roles in multiple films. Fails WP:NACTOR which needs significant roles in multiple films. May be WP:TOOSOON. We can not use WP:GNG as well. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mamushir. Thank you for review. I think the subject plays important role in those movies, although she may not be the lead actor. I have also checked other references that show the subject's profile is in strong position to stay on Wikipedia. I have also mentioned the reliable sources that confirm this. I am trying to add some more articles of people who have contributed to different fields, I request you to check subject's notability on Facebook [1] and on Instagram [2]Mapd43 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion
Mamushir, please help me to get this article approved with your guidance so that I can do some more contribution to Wikipedia Mapd43 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment (came to categorize) -- Unable to evaluate what is an important role due to lack of familiarity. But I somewhat disagree as to whether the actor has to lead in those films. Yes, I see the policy. Ask yourself however whether with those criteria Albert Hitchcock would be notable as an actor. The article is a bit undue and should be edited for NOTRESUME. However that is an impressive list of films, all of which have their own articles. The article requires limited editing and the subject probably will have many film roles eventually. That said, I have no connection to the subject, but I say why not just prune it a bit. I worry that sometimes editors think that if something was important, they would have heard of it. Elinruby (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Elinruby, Thank you so much for your comment and guidance. Your comments makes me understand as to why Mamushir nominated this article for deletion. It is a good idea to follow the guidelines and to prune it a bit as you guided. As Mamushir said, this subject fails WP:NACTOR, removing information that describes this subject as an actress. Really thankful to you and Mamushir for helping to make Wikipedia as reliable source of information and also for helping new editors like us who want to do more contribution in near future Mapd43 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ Mamushir, as per your feedback and input, I have removed the information that was resulting this subject to fail for WP:NACTOR I hope now this article does not violate Wikipedia policy and also delivers proper information about the subject. I request you to withdraw your nomination for page deletion, thanks in advance. Mapd43 (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately in Wikipedia, we have strict policy for WP:BLP. Narrowing down the discussion to WP:NACTOR, the subject is not at all passing. It is failing WP:GNG as well. Right now, there are 10 references out of 13 references in the article which are from youtube. Mapd43, please see WP:RS and WP:GNG. How much popular a person is in facebook or instagram has no connection with how notability is evaluated in Wikipedia. A very popular person who is notable must satisfy WP:N. These being elaborated, the subject lacks enough notability for a separate article. This may be WP:TOOSOON. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 06:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ Mamushir, at this moment the article has no such information where WP:NACTOR is applicable. I completely disagree with you that the subject is not popular. I have done in-dept research and cited reliable sources of news channel websites that mention about the subject with proof. If these reliable websites have released articles mentioning the subject, it is understood that the subject holds strong notability into the Telugu Television world. Instead of focusing on why this article should not stay on Wikipedia, as genuine editors, we must focus on why this article should stay on Wikipedia. The YouTube videos that are given in reference, are uploaded on authentic and official YouTube channels of those news channels which gives an extra layer of authenticity to the sources presented. Hence, in my opinion, this article is good to go and should be approved Mapd43 (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I request other editors also to get involved in this discussion and contribute to get this article approved. I have seen many other profiles on Wikipedia with just 2-3 citations, but those profiles are still approved by Wikipedia, then there is no question about the subject profile to get deleted after adding so many trustworthy citations and references. In addition to this, now we can also see the google knowledge panel displaying subject's profile and information. Please refer the screenshot that is attached. I request to approve this article. Mapd43 (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was described in the article as an actress initially, which she does not meet per WP:NACTOR. Now, if she is tried to be presented as a 'TV Anchor' or similar then also we can not get the subject pass through since it basically fails WP:SIGCOV moreover majority of sources are either non RS, or non reputed or have trivial mention about the subject. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 08:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I thought this subject's profile is good to go as television presenter and actress, but later with your comment and inputs, I got to know that this subject may not be eligible for actor profile as she fails WP:NACTOR. But she definitely has a strong profile as television presenter which I have noticed in my research and thus, I have included all relevant sources and citations. I totally disagree with your comment that the sources are non RS or non reputed. The subject has got coverage on highly popular and authentic as well as official media websites like Wirally.com [3] , ETV.co.in [4] etc. I have seen many articles that have no strong reliable source, still they are approved and active on Wikipedia, for example check article page of Gigi Hozimah[5] If such articles can stay on Wikipedia, then the subject's Article must stay on Wikipedia as we have added strong citations and references of official websites. Mapd43 (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mapd43, Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to understand what kind of arguments are acceptable in a AfD discussion. As far as Gigi Hozimah, she is one among the handful of female filmmakers of Saudi Arabia, being a female filmmaker in a country like saudi arabia is surely something notable enough to be included in Wikipedia to which several people have agreed. For more you should read the edit history and the talk page. Furthermore the page underwent a speedy test which was declined just as it should have happened. Coming back to Lahari Shari, she does not qualify as a notable person per WP:SIGCOV. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've collapsed the extended discussion between the nominator and creator above in the hope that it will encourage other editors to comment. @Mamushir and Mapd43: Please take a quick look at WP:AFDFORMAT and try to keep your comments brief.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TV personalities from small markets are rarely notable. Most people in the world have jobs of some sort, and just because someone's job happens to include doing on-camera work and interviewing celebrities doesn't mean that they, themselves, are notable. Primary school children have access to quality phone cameras these days, and could produce entertainment content just as well as anybody else. No indication that this is a bona-fide journalist of any sort. Can't find anything to satisfy WP:BEFORE, so I don't think they meet the WP:GNG as of yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I request other editors and admins to contribute to this discussion and also to go through the references and cites that are attached to the article. I believe the subject seems to be a well known media personality and has a good popularity among fans, not only this, I have also noticed that some reputed media websites have published articles about the subject. I think this article can stay. Mapd43 (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Boldly relisting a third time. This discussion needs more input to reach a definitive conclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this TMZ-like fashion piece from The Times of India but even with that and the YouTube video "sources" in the article, I don't see enough to pass WP:GNG. ~EdGltalk 04:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject seems to be notable but has less sources mentioned. Going deeper into research, found a latest article about the subject on one of the most popular media sites in India, Mid Day. Apart from the television news career, the subject seems to earn adequate fame and achievements for being chosen in an upcoming Telugu film into a lead role. I found this source: [33]
The source you provided says nothing about Lahari Shari. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a couple puff pieces on the her and not much else (see NewsX, ETimes). In light of the prevalence of undisclosed advertisements among such sources, these are all likely non independent coverage. Tayi ArajakateTalk 08:15, 2 February 2021 (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.
no evidence of notability ; no evidence that receiveing it is a factor in notability . Most of the refs are mere notices; the most substantial, in the National. in actually just an announcement of a K 25,000 gift to support the award, which is utterly trivial. DGG ( talk ) 11:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: From where I'm standing, looks hopelessly trivial. That said, PNG is a small country that Western sources have a tendency not to care about. I can't rule out someone going on a deep dive and finding treasure, but I think it's less likely than many of the AfDs I point out that issue on. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Context: I starting this page while de-orphaning articles. In an attempt to de-orphan Bosa Togs, one recipient of a WOW Award, I discovered that there are six winners of this award (that I have identified so far) with Wikipedia pages. Generally, this is the kind of signal I look for to suggest that a page would be appropriate--multiple pages referencing an entity that does not have coverage in Wikipedia.
RE sourcing: as a librarian, one source that is extraordinarily helpful for identifying both major press outlets by country is the BBC Country Profiles. Each country has a page that describes the overall situation with the media an identifies the largest outlets in a number of categories. For PNG, I used the BBC Papua New Guinea Media profile ( to Vaticidalprophet 's point, the shortness of the profile demonstrates the small size of PNG's media presence, inline with the small size of the country). The top three media outlets mentioned are, in fact, The National, The Post-Courier, and EMTV, which are the main sources used in the article. Confoundingly to Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, the BBC profile also mentions that blogs are central to communication in PNG, and this situation did, indeed, cause difficulties in writing an page that can pass notability standards. Many helpful sources are blogs, and many websites use blogging platforms as hosts. That said, the article does rest heavily on the major media outlets of the country of PNG.
Once more, apparent notability to an international audience certainly can be inhibited by the size of PNG. However, I will note that English is one of the three official languages of PNG, and therefore English Wikipedia is an appropriate and important place to reflect entities of notability within the nation.
As to the award itself, PNG has both long-standing and more contemporary reasons that women have much lower profiles in society, and experience many barriers to participating in the economy. This award was created as a way to recognize, promote, and normalize women in the workforce and in visible positions therein. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2020 PNG ranks 127 of 153 countries with regard to equality of women, it ranks last among East Asian and Pacific countries, and overall by category it ranks 152 for political empowerment of women, 132 for educational attainment of women, and 70 for economic participation. The United Nations also recognizes this issue, for example the UNFPA states: "Gender equality is a significant challenge in PNG, and systemic violations of women’s rights exist throughout the country." As such, Westpac's decision to highlight and encourage professional women has created a significant opportunity to create role models, and has specifically been a vehicle for advancing educational and professional opportunities for the awardees, who - in turn - have continued to play major roles in PNG economy and society (some examples off the top of my head: Crystal Kewe's Crysan Technology now has Silicon Valley offices, and is now multinatonal, according to this source; Samantha Maria Andreas also won a Chevening Scholarship and is now at a major company in PNG, Ok Tedi Mining Ltd; Margaret Aka, is the first female coach of the national football teams, and so on). That the award has lasted for a decade and a half is also no small matter. Looking at Economy_of_Papua_New_Guinea, the awardees come from all the major industries, many of them working for the major companies mentioned in that article (For example, Andreas' employer). Furthermore, while fighting for equal pay for, say, two women in a company may seem small, it is not that different from how change ultimately comes about in other countries, such as the United States (though it may happen through court cases in the US). Overall, both the intent and the impact of these awards do very much strike me as notable. Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! My spark of hope is fulfilled! This is an incredibly promising start, and exactly what I keep telling people happens with non-English/non-Western AfDs that don't get a very close WP:BEFORE. Accordingly, let's call it a keep, and I think I'll find myself bringing this case up in many BEFORE-lacking AfDs. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of the award may not be high but recognition of women's achievements is certainly important in this small developing country. Remember it is the award the article is about, not the individual women who received it. Notability is supported by the sources given.--Ipigott (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, FWIW, an entire year of college tuition at the University of Papua New Guinea is in the range of ~K3,000 (2019) -- so K25,000 might very well make post secondary education possible. Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could have closed this as no consensus verging on keep but will give it another 7 day spin to see if anyone wants to raise anything else.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the explanation gives a lot of detail and the article is sound Lajmmoore (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep and put Oughtta Be Otters in charge of a new WikiProject to overhaul award pages. So many skip right over actually describing the award and its significance, to go straight to a list of winners. Here we finally have a referenced entry that tells us about the award itself! Well done. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2021 (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.
A minor 100-ball cricket league with no indication of signifance. Article is poorly written and has very less details. 100 ball cricket itself is controversial and for a local league with a handful of professional players, this is more debatable. Human (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a minor tournament as it has national TV coverage and 12 notable cricketers involved and coverage in national outlets such as Daily Star Bangladesh already in the article, passes WP:GNG. As a side note, 100 ball cricket has been sanctioned by the English and Wales Cricket Board for a national competition so it is a mainstream format, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: Just 12 notable players doesnt seem enough. Most of them are not proffessional cricketers. And details about all the matches in the tournament aren't there. The tournament that was sanctioned didn't even take place until now and all other such leagues doesn't have articles. The tournament also is not sanctioned by Bangladesh Cricket Board. Human (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A regular news from the daily star doesn't mean it's notable. It's not even Bangladesh Cricket Board approved. How can i say, it just a local tournament. Even cricinfo didn't listed it on their side (usually they list everything). No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I personally think this is advertising junk and wish I could !vote to delete. But I think they slip through our notability guidelines with what appear to be the required multiple reliable independent secondary sources, especially the Forbes India article. At AfD, that's all they need. Msnicki (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I missed the disclaimer on the Forbes article. Kudos to Tsistunagiska (talk·contribs) for their sharp eyes. Msnicki (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More citations have been added to support AFD. Please suggest the additional information required to avoid getting the page deleted. Priyagupte (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2021 (IST)
DeleteThe Forbes India article doesn't count as reliable. It was not written by staff or journalist at Forbes India. The disclaimer at the bottom states this:
Disclaimer: This content is distributed by Digpu News Network. No Forbes India journalist is involved in the creation of this content.
It is simply another advertisement. We have biographies on women being deleted with far better and more reliable sources than this commercial. Doesn't meet the requirements set out by WP:N and so doesn't pass our basic notability guideline. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 13:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Request you to consider the other citation links used. Can suggestions on which sites are considered significant will be very helpful. Priyagupte (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2021 (IST) (duplicate !vote)
Delete as non-notable and with unreliable or trivial coverage. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Celebfie: Coverage goes beyond WP:ROUTINE. I found a few reliable sources about the app released at most 2 months ago: [34], [35], [36], [37] and [38]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. Your sources 1 and 3 are from Big News Network, republishing material from aninews.in which appears to have gotten it from this NewsVoir press release. The rest self-identify as press releases and interviews. None of this is helpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:SIGCOV from actual RS, fails GNG. SK2242 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost exclusively has non-independent promotional coverage. Tayi ArajakateTalk 08:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. His awards do not satisfy #1 of WP:SOLDIER. The claims that he was/is "the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War" are not supported by RS and are demonstrably false, as Robert L. Howard, Joe Hooper (Medal of Honor), David Hackworth and presumably several others, were more decorated and/or with medals of higher precedence. As he was not the "most decorated" there is no basis to the claimed notability. Similarly being "possibly the most decorated U.S. soldier in the Vietnam War living today" is a tenuous basis for claiming notability, while having two buildings named after him (one in his home town) doesn't establish notability either. The claim that he served 5 tours in South Vietnam with multiple different units is not reliably sourced. Mztourist (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It isn't a question of him receiving the Medal of Honor (example) or not, it is the amount of military decorations which he was awarded. There are plenty of sources in the internet in regard to this fact. Tony the Marine (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to provide multiple RS confirming that he was awarded more decorations than anyone else. The current references don't support your assertion of that as the basis for his notability. Mztourist (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The claim that he served 5 tours in Vietnam is covered with this source which I'll add to his article. On this ref from militarytimes it states he was deployed 5 times to Vietnam and states his awards, museums named after him.. The source state he earned "three Silver Stars, five Purple Hearts, five Bronze Stars, five Air Medals and four Army Commendation Medals". He is notable. he was the "most decorated Puerto Rican soldier.. and one of the most decorated of the entire Vietnam conflict" see here on nps.gov --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this resolution it states he was the "most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War". This is a resolution that was sent to the US Congress and multiple other agencies.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are you actually claiming as the basis of his notability? Other soldiers received more (and higher) decorations. We don't have pages for the most decorated soldier from each state so being the most decorated Puerto Rican soldier isn't notable. The document that you have provided is non-RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also he seems to have SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. The document I provided is from a Reliable Source. It is from a Latin advocacy group who dots their "i's" and crosses their "ts" (they check everything) before they send the document off to congress for review.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An "advocacy group" says it all, they have an agenda they are pushing and so cannot be regarded as RS. “most decorated soldier in the Vietnam War” is in quotes in the resolution, meaning they are quoting from somewhere else. They certainly don't "dots their "i's" and crosses their "ts" (they check everything)" as you suggest, as they refer to the "The Combat Infantry Badge" when its the Combat Infantryman Badge. What is the SIGCOV in multiple RS? I don't see any. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to add that this document also incorrectly states that he received 3 Silver Stars when he actually was awarded 2. This advocacy group obviously did not check their information very carefully, nor did MilitaryTimes. Roam41 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A U.S. Major General (see cites), in addition to two other credible organizations --of which at least one is "sponsored by the US Congress"-- have identified SFC Otero Barreto as "the most decorated U.S. soldier" of the Vietnam War.[1][2][3] BTW, none of the 3 other soldiers presented by the nominator as counter arguments (Robert Howard ("may have been the most highly decorated"), Joe Hooper ("one of the most-decorated soldiers in the Vietnam War"), and David Hackworth ("was decorated in both the Korean War and Vietnam War") have a single RS, let alone "multiple", calling them "the most decorated". Mercy11 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that you have provided are clearly not RS. The League of United Latin American Citizens is a lobbying group. The remarks of a retired Puerto Rican USAF general are just his opinion and obviously POV and he couldn't even get the war right referring to the Korean War and not Vietnam. VVA is a lobbying group and the story refers to him as "the most decorated Puerto Rican veteran" not the most decorated U.S. soldier. So there are no RS that he was the "most decorated U.S. soldier" of the Vietnam War. I have added numerous RS to Robert Howard which variously describe him as "one of the most decorated soldiers in the Vietnam War" (LA Times and New York Times obits); "may have been the most highly decorated American soldier of the modern era" (NBC News); "said to be the most decorated service member in the history of the United States" (KWTX-TV) and ""remains to this day [1998] the most highly decorated American soldier." (John Plaster), all far more reliable than the sources you and others have proffered. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What additionally concerns me is we have to dip down to the third level of valor awards (SS) before we see an award. And if we're going to start counting medals, I'm sure any number of pilots could exceed the 38 decorations. Intothatdarkness 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been problematic for a long time and I am glad it has been put up for deletion discussion. The notability issue has been brought up before. However, there are several editors working on the page with an intense agenda to claim Jorge Otero Barreto as the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. There has been no attempt to keep a neutral POV. When confronted with opposing evidence, the page was rewritten to say that he "has been called the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War". It is a technicality, but a misleading one and the reliability of the sources has been discussed above. In fact, he is not the most decorated. He is not the most highly decorated as he does not have the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross. He also does not have the most number of medals. David Hackworth has over 60 and Patrick Henry Brady has the MOH, the DSC plus 52 Air Medals, to show some examples. Looking back at the references used in early drafts of this article (most are deadlinks now), it appears the claim may have been that Otero Barreto was perhaps the most decorated Puerto Rican soldier of the Vietnam War. (I am not sure how even this could be possible since there are several soldiers from Puerto Rico who were awarded the Medal of Honor during Vietnam.) If this was actually the original sourced claim, then it has now been blown out of proportion. Unfortunately this WP article is being used almost exclusively as the sole source of information about Sgt. Otero Barreto. If the article is kept, I can only hope it can be edited to be more neutral and truthful. Deletion would also be an appropriate decision. Roam41 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, a rational editor in the discussion. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted to enable further discussion of the sources and allow a more clear policy-based consensus to emerge in relation to disposition.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Jack Frost's relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "called the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War.[4][2][3][5][6] -- five sources" It would be helpful to have him in the database in case someone was doing research into the most decorated soldiers during the Vietnam War, etc. Durindaljb (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of them are RS and we have multiple RS that Robert L. Howard was the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War and possibly most in US history. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as well explained above with all the others 'keeps'. - wolf 01:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War" is a notable accomplishment. DreamFocus 02:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be, except he isn't as you would see by reading above.Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well he was one of the most, and the most decorated of his ethnic group. Also: Otero Barreto became the first Puerto Rican to graduate from the Army’s Air Assault School[39]DreamFocus 03:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"One of" isn't notable, nor is his ethnic group, nor being first Puerto Rican to do something. The coverage is either wrong or locally biased and not significant. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't short on space, and his accomplishments seem notable enough to me. Disagree all you want, but most people have stated this article should be kept. DreamFocus 03:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes WP isn't short of space, but retaining pages based on tenuous notability (particularly "first x to do/die/be awarded for doing y") which are poorly sourced just lowers the quality bar altogether and leads to the creation of more dross. Mztourist (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not sure how he could have been the first anyone to graduate from a school that didn't exist in 1960. The Howze Board (considered the birthplace of air assault/airmobile doctrine by most historians) didn't form until 1962. Intothatdarkness 21:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the history of the 101st, you would see they didn't become airmobile until around 1968. There was no air assault training in any real form prior to 1963-64 when the 11th Air Assault Division (Test) was formed to evaluate the concept. And as near as I can determine, he never served with the units that provided cadre to create the test division. And the claim in the article (that Barreto was the first Puerto Rican to complete the 101st training) assumes that NO Puerto Ricans served in the division during, say, World War II. Intothatdarkness 22:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The school did not exist before 1968. There was ad hoc air assault training conducted at some Basic Training locations during Vietnam, and the divisions conducted additional training based on their needs once soldiers arrived in-country and were assigned. But that training didn't exist prior to 1966 except in the 11th AAD and (once it was reflagged) the 1st Cavalry Division. And the air assault badge wasn't created until 1978, and was considered retroactive to 1974. The statements just don't stand up. Intothatdarkness 22:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the first linked RS has a note 'citation needed'. I think that kind of sums the article up. The second Military Times piece looks like a rehash of the Wikipedia article. Intothatdarkness 22:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above being the "first x to do/die/be awarded for doing y" is not notable. I'm sure all of us could claim to be the first person from some nationality to do something. The sources are very poor for every claim in this page and many of them are just plain wrong. He wasn't "the most decorated soldier" and if the "Air Assault School" didn't exist at the time he supposedly attended it, then that source is wrong too. Overall the sources for this page are weak and extremely locally biased just like the pages of many other Puerto Rican "heroes". Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you consider the first of a group to do something relevant doesn't really matter. They get coverage for being the first, so it is notable enough for reliable sources to mention. Category:Lists of firsts exist showing Wikipedia does consider being the first a notable achievement. DreamFocus 00:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But those firsts need to be verifiable in RS. So far none of these are. You can't attend a school before it exists (air assault). There is no RS-verifiable evidence he was the first Puerto Rican to go through the 101st's training process (the alternate claim put forward by the unverifiable 'sources' used in this article). Mztourist has already addressed the 'most decorated soldier' claim. Intothatdarkness 01:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the nom's initial assessment and the multitude of apparent factual errors in the article itself. I would feel better about the notability of the individual if it was based on something other than his military record (which, as presented in this article, is full of holes at best...if his work with VVA can be documented in RS as being notable it might be a better starting point). Intothatdarkness 14:45, 29 January 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied this as "g11" which was declined by Espresso Addict. In its current form, the page does not serve an encyclopedic purpose and rather serves to make the organization well-known. I did hear of this in CBC Marketplace on YouTube and probably would say that it probably does meet notability guidelines, but it needs expansion and a fundamental rewrite to be fully encyclopedic. It would be best to delete the page and start over. Aasim (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, improve. There's a lot of hits in Google (~230k) and Google's news coverage, many looked trivial but the organisation appears very likely to be notable. I'm not sure that the current article is quite so poor as to require deleting and restarting, and there is a lot more in the history (started 2006) that might be rescued. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm having a real hard time finding in-depth coverage about it, with one exception. It is frequently quoted in news media, but I don't see much description about the organization itself. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2021 (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.
Delete this article per WP:NYA and failing all clauses of WP:NACTOR until actor has had significant roles in movie and television. This child actor although having feeble notability for co-starring in Wrinkle in time, he has no other significant major roles out of his so far diminutive 6 credit acting career. This article also relies on a primary tweet source which is strongly repudiated on wikipedia. I believe this actor could have article if he gains more roles in the future and receives better coverage. Alternatively you could redirect him to A Wrinkle in Time. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub - I googled his name and NBC, Teen Vogue, Screen Rant, and Rappler have all covered him. The New York Times, Deadline, Rolling Stone, The Boston Herald, Variety, and ABC news all give him bare mentions. That's enough for him to pass WP:SIGCOV. He passes one clause of WP:NACTOR because he's taken roles in "A Wrinkle in Time" and Apple TV's "Home Before Dark". There isn't much potential to expand the article at this time which could be a problem, but he passes the notability requirements, and there are a plethora of reliable sources who've covered him, so I vote to keep VERSACESPACE 03:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:VersaceSpace, Can you provide the sources you mentioned so I can check them to see if he didn't just name check in those articles? because name-checking "bare articles" does not fit significant coverage criteria, That literally goes against it as it doesn't cover the subject. And I suggest we should delete this and send it to the article draft for improvements than keep it as a stub using primary sources and a non-detail description. And the first film is good, but Home before dark is just 10 episodes and he's a secondary character. My overall opinion is that this article's creation was too soon because with child actors, they can disappear from acting very quickly and we would want to make sure not to make article like this too soon, especially if it is a stub with a lack of reliable and significant sources. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
god damn it you got me in an edit conflict now i gotta rewrite this shit lmaooo VERSACESPACE 04:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
anyway im not writing that again but if you look him up in google news everything i listed will show up. VERSACESPACE 04:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Subjects references do show notability and do not just show passing mentions. Does need major cleanup, but I believe the actor does just, just pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, as I can personally find significant coverage and he has had two main roles in two major productions (Home Before Dark, A Wrinkle in Time). If I am correct, that is passing the point in WP:NACTOR that the individuals proposing deletion believe he doesn't. Coreykai (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to draft Actor currently does not pass WP:NACTOR with only 6 credited roles with one of them as a co-starring role and the rest as small minor roles which does't warranted current article creation. Actor also fails the other two clauses of WP:NACTOR with no award nominations or significant contributions to the field of acting mostly because he's a child actor. Actor aslo fails the reliable source clause of WP:GNG as the article relies too heavily on a questionable primary source. Most coverage I can find on him is name check mentions from his roles as Charles wallace murry in A Wrinkle in time, content farm garbage articles and Questionable sources which is not generally accepted as a reliable or significant source if the content can not be verified, So delete. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Struck duplicate !vote by the nominator. Eddie891TalkWork 15:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete he has at most 1 role that was a signifcant role in a notable production. The minimum cutoff is 2 such roles, so we should delete the article until he has another significant role in a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891TalkWork 15:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to satisfy NACTOR or SIGCOV. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 13:06, 4 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My WP:BEFORE showed no RSes to support their notability, which unfortunately is the case with many guitar amp manufacturers and the passing mentions in the article do not support it either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company produces amps, not guitars so it doesn't appear that the nominator has spent sufficient time on the topic. It doesn't take me long to find reviews of the company's products in the music press such as this, which starts, "Over the last few years, Diezel amplifiers have become the must-have choice for some of the most high-profile rock guitarists on the planet." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. This article cites no sources and none have been found (a single mention in a review of one of their products is hardly enough, but if we could find more of those, it could help a little). Fails WP:NORG. Average WP:CORPSPAM, etc. But do ping me if better sources are found so I can reconsider my vote. It is plausible this could be rescued. I would also support draftifying it back in its creator userpace, if they are active and willing to work on it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims of notability in the English Article the German Langauge article makes some minor claims " have been awarded prizes." but all the reference I am seeing on either article and my search are either primary, or minor mentions. Fail WP:GNGJeepday (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Over the last few years, Diezel amplifiers have become the must-have choice for some of the most high-profile rock guitarists on the planet. Behemoths such as James Hetfield, Billy Corgan and Matt Bellamy are just three of many who have embraced the four-channel versatility of German-engineered über-amplifier the VH4.
Diezel Amplification is largely the brainchild of electronics graduate Peter Diezel, who began dabbling in guitar amplifiers by modifying Marshalls in Munich in the 1980s and co-founded the company with fellow musician Peter Stapfer in the early 1990s. The first VH4 amplifiers were manufactured as early as 1994, but it has been in recent years that the profile of the company has really accelerated, with the high profile patronage of the aforementioned hard rocking luminaries.
Buddingh, Terry (April 2004). "Gear: Diezel Herbert". Guitar Player. Vol. 38, no. 4. pp. 138–140, 142.
The abstract notes, "Buddingh reviews Diezel's Herbert." The article notes, "If you've been keeping up with the latest trends and developments in elite multi-channel high-gain amplifiers, you've surely heard of Diezel. Hand-crafted in Munich, Germany, these wicked-sounding tone machines have been a force to be reckoned with ever since the impressive four-channel VH4 (reviewed December, 1999) debuted in the U.S. several years ago."
Fox, Darrin (December 1999). "Exotica: Diezel VH4". Guitar Player. Vol. 33, no. 12. pp. 133–134.
The abstract notes, "Fox reviews the Diezel VH4 amplifier." The article notes, "The Munich-based Diezel company is a relative newcomer to the highgain, boutique amp arena, but as their VH4 head proves, there's room at the top if you've got what it takes. This marvel wins an Editors' Pick Award."
The article notes, "For many high-gain connoisseurs, a Diezel amp will always be 'the dream' - and one that's usually agonisingly out of reach." The article later notes, "It's this combination of advanced features and superb, genre-spanning tones that makes Diezel amps so special, and to see it in a package this well priced is very impressive."
The article notes, "Diezel Amplification burst on the scene in 1994 with the mighty VH4 and VH4S amplifier heads, which caused a stir when Adam Jones of Tool embraced them as part of his triple-amp stage and recording rig. Since then, Diezel amps have found favor with players including Neil Schon, Metallica, Buckethead, and Weezer, to name a few. Diezel amps are known for their power and definition, along with their quick attack, extreme versatility and their ability to stand out in the mix."
The article notes, "Lucky for us, then, that Peter Diezel, joined by Peter Stapfer, set about applying the famed Germanic spirit to building their own amps in the 1980s, and Diezel Amplification was born."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To examine sources raised by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources found by Cunard help the subject meet GNG. If there is no objection I am happy to close the AfD and will even add the sources to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2021 (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.
An autobiography with a claim to notability of winning two awards. The Dada Shaheb one can be verified, for example I found her here. The Mother Teresa Award is more dubious. I could not find a reliable source for this and it's telling that the article for Mother Teresa Award, with its sources, don't mention her under the winners of the 2015 award. Is this source reliable? It seems like it was written by her agent or someone closely connected. Aside from that, I found this interview, this brief mention and this article on News Boosters. She is mentioned here but, in my view, does not pass WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Obviously very talented if she can write poetry, run businesses, paint, write novels, be a social worker and a humanitarian but is she notable enough? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:40, 25 January 2021 (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.
Doesn't pass WP:ORG. The most reliable source is from the Associated Press, which is a paid piece. Most sources that come up are social media pages and self published blogs. Can't find any source that demonstrates this passes even WP:GNG. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 09:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references 2 and 3 have expired. Article is too brief. Teraplane (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Teraplane. Please note that brevity is not an appropriate ground for deletion :). Cabrils (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find a single reference via a database search of Australian and NZ newspapers. I could not find a single appropriate ref via Google. At this time fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2021 (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.
Delete per nom. He is a plastic surgeon. Nothing to pass the notability mark. Kolma8 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2021 (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. Notability not established Nosebagbear (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A very small and potentially non-notable record label with no notable recordings. The coverage that I could find consisted largely of unreliable sources such as Bandcamp, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Discogs, Soundcloud and so on. The coverage that I did find in Unite Asia, Backstage Whisp, Kapan Lagi and The Jakarta Post was brief and not enough to establish notability through WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone. Another non-notable record label. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small non-notable company. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Lesliechin1 (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsorced and not notable, all sources I was able to find are all unreliable per WP:RS/PS. User3749 (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2021 (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 The Singles Ward. Consensus that it doesn't meet NFILM for independent notability, but might as well be merged into the original's article. I will execute, but please feel free to supercede my edits should you wish. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was deleted just on 21 September 2020. Both Atlantic306 and John Pack Lambert provided a good reason for deletion. It is the same movie, the same article... Kolma8 (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Singles Ward, since it is a sequel we can briefly mention it there. There is no reason for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Barring there being more coverage that isn't easily discovered, this doesn't seem to be independently notable enough outside of the first film. I found two book sources, however they largely discuss it alongside of the first film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: A few minor roles, nothing significant for her. VocalIndia (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the few roles she has do not rise to the level of notability needed for an actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't read most of the sources given, but it would appear to be small parts. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2021 (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. Notability not established Nosebagbear (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEVENTS as well as WP:NORG. Lack of coverage in third party reliable media. Created by SPA and possible WP:COI user, with COI username. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − Fails WP:NEVENTS. The first website has been used as a source [40] looks mostly like a blog and isn't reliable, and the other one is a sales website [41]. I'm not seeing coverage by reliable, independent sources that establishes its notability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insufficient coverage, non-working website. EliQM (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2021 (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.
Forgive me if I'm missing a guideline here - it's entirely possible these ships are presumed notable for their own article. But I have no idea why this article is notable, or should be kept as standalone. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There was a rough consensus about the reliability of the excerpted reviews providing notability, given that film reviews from the 1950s were not likely to be online. Only one (weak) delete !vote came in, and that voter surmised that the film dictionary cite roughly satisfied the GNG. (non-admin closure)Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE, Wikipedia is not an IMdB mirror.
PROD removed because "Removed PROD. Please check Interwiki. Multiple reviews are quoted in the Spanish language article."
In any case, when I did my BEFORE, I checked that article. There is a book listed that is just a "dictionary of Argentine films" and 2 "reviews" that have no citations, so I can't verify their authenticity. So, none of those satisfy WP:NFILMDonaldd23 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no requirement that reviews be online. They need to exist. They are cited to the aforementioned book, which is a dictionary of Argentine film. As part of their entries, they appear to excerpt reviews. You expecting reviews to be online from movies from the 1950s is not necessarily a reasonable request. matt91486 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews aren't attributed to the book, they are just listed in the Spanish article, so how would any reasonable person be expected to know that. Also, I know the requirements are that they need to exist, but since they aren't attributed in the article anyone can question the notability of any article that lacks them, as I have. Again, the Spanish article has a reference to a book that appears to be just a listing of films (and the "reviews" aren't attributed to the book...they are just there) and that isn't enough to pass notability requirements. The 2 "reviews" also need to be in-depth reviews...not capsule reviews...to pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In other entries that the person who wrote the article, it's more clearly indicated that the summaries of the reviews come from the text, as sometimes the text itself is quoted as one of the reviews. I didn't write the article, I understand it's not written optimally. That being said, we have excerpts from reviews from two relevant publications from the 1950s. It is absolutely not reasonable to expect to have online access to reviews from this era, and the fact that we have a book excerpting them is actually a very strong indication of its notability. There are incredible systemic bias concerns (WP:BIAS) with relying solely on convenient information to determine notability. I agree, it is certainly preferable and better if we happened to have links to online reviews. But a dictionary of the topic including an entry, and excerpting reviews from two independent publications of the era, seems to very clearly indicate notability as well as can be reasonably expected with the resources we have. matt91486 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak Delete - Yet another Enrique Carreras' comedy from the 1960s, hardly remembered as one of his "masterpieces" (such as Los Evadidos, Amalio Reyes, un hombre and Las Locas, all of them award-winners in different festivals). Be cited by Manrupe & Portela's dictionary may be enough for WP:GNG, but the movie fails WP:NFOE. Once again, a prolific filmmaker and a great cast, but notability is not inherited.---Darius (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per matt91486. It is clear that sources/reviews exist. We have direct quotes from two publications in the Spanish language article here. I agree that the quotes mostl likely came from and are cited in this book that is also mentioned on the Spanish Wikipedia article, which I should be able to get via interlibrary loan. With the help of Google translate, I will see whether I can get more specific citations from the book; if not, I can look and see whether there are other reviews excerpted or what other information I can find out. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the relible sources reviews mentioned above that the editor intends to reformat for easier verification, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Given a number of new sources, the article appears to be somewhat notable but needs to be heavily improved. (non-admin closure)IceWelder [✉] 14:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The website appears unnotable or "one of many". The LATimes article, penned by a "freelance journalist", appears to be the only thing close to significant coverage, but the other sources currently used only name-drop the site (WP:PASSING). A short WP:BEFORE, including on Newspapers.com, show little additional information that could be sourced here. IceWelder [✉] 17:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Lego Users Group Network: Barely found any online article about the community, but it has received some coverage from books using the name Lego Users Group Network. I also found some reliable books which talk about it: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] and [47]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, I don't have access to most of these books. Could you verify whether the content justifies keeping the article? In some of the abstracts, it appears that there are just passing mentions of website, á la "there is also LUGNET". In the best case, the article could already be improved using these sources. IceWelder [✉] 11:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IceWelder, it's best to use "Lego Users Group Network" in searching for any info about it rather than "LUGNET". Like I said, it has received some coverage from books, even in scholar. NONE of the sources I indicated are passing mentions since there are parts where it's talked about, whether fully or briefly. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brief mentions are equal to passing mentions. When the information does not go beyond that LUGNET existed, it cannot be considered in-depth coverage. At least two of the sources you provided run afoul of this; I don't have access to the others. IceWelder [✉] 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brief mentions are not necessarily equal to passing mentions. ++Lar: t/c 00:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There has been considerable scholarly research into why LEGO fans are so fervent, why they are excellent brand ambassadors, and how their relationship with The LEGO Group has deepened and strengthened over time. For example: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/collaborating-with-customer-communities-lessons-from-the-lego-group/ ... That article is an outgrowth of doctoral research carried out by Dr. Yun Mi Antorini, and much of her research focused on the unique role that LUGNet (to use the preferred capitalization, chosen to emphasize it stands for LEGO Users Group Network) played in this. LUGNet was not "one of many", it was THE place to come and discuss any and all LEGO related topics 2 decades ago. That has changed, and the site is now dormant, but it's of historical interest, and it's notable. Full disclosure, I was user #5 and I'm cited in the research I reference. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, the source you cite only mentions LUGNET in two sentences. Via ResearchGate:
We also closely followed adult Lego users on com- munity forums and sites and collected profiles that members uploaded on Lugnet.com, the Lego User Group Network. The forums addressed community membership, Lego hobby activities and tastes and practices related to adult Lego users’ innovations. In total, we amassed 1,016 pages of doubled-spaced text.In addition, we conducted 25 in-depth interviews and several informal inter-views with members of the community, face to face or via email or phone. Face-to-face and phone interviews typically lasted between one and two hours. During the research process, the lead author became a member of the Danish Lego User Group and made presentations and led round-table discussions at North American adult user conventions. Many of the findings presented in this paper have been previously shared with adult users at community events and online forums, thus offering the community opportunities to comment on the findings and conclusions.
There does not seem to be any significant coverage of LUGNET itself in that source. IceWelder [✉] 17:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the original doctoral dissertation, it's a distillation, created in more modern times, after LUGNet had went essentially dormant. (Current dormancy is not evidence of non-notability, mind you). I can't speculate why Yun Mi cut the original material down. I have the original dissertation here somewhere, as well as the book that resulted. ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
also (separated out to let you comment to each section separately) I note that you did not address my refutation of your "one of many" claim. Before LUGNet, there was only rec.toys.lego (or alt.toys.lego before that) ... There are many places NOW, but that was not the case 20 years ago. which is why this site is notable. At one time it was THE place to discuss all things LEGO, the toys, the brand, the company, fan activity, personal creations, all of it. Your "one of many" claim is entirely baseless. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the original dissertation provide more in-depth information on LUGNET itself? That is the central problem here. Whether it was just one of many or the largest ever is ultimately irrelevant, as would be/have been the largest for a relatively niche community. WP:GNG - we need in-depth coverage about the topic, not a dissertation inspired by some of the topic's content. IceWelder [✉] 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is your best estimate for the size of this "relatively niche" community (the set of all Adult fans of LEGO)? I suggest you're trying to marginalize it, and it's a lot bigger than you think. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. We need in-depth coverage of the topic, or else the topic cannot stand as its own article. A merge to Lego in popular culture, as EdGl suggested below, seems reasonable. LUGNET can easily be mentioned there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceWelder (talk • contribs)
You're missing the point. You introduced the argument that it was "one of many" (in your nomination), not I... but it was not "one of many". It has some technical uniqueness as well, being nntp at the core rather than a more modern forum implementation. While no one has written a book solely about LUGNet, (although someone could) there is enough material to put together an article without resorting to first person accounts or synthesis. You need to decide if you want to make the argument there are not enough sources, or if you want to make the argument that it's not notable. You can't have it both ways. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prompted by the merge suggestion from EdGl (and thanks for that) I went looking for brand community research.
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204482304574222062946162306 which I surmise (it's paywalled) has this quote "As one Lego spokesman said: “[Lugnet offers] incredibly valuable insights” in hardware, software, design and usability, feedback which informs the brands product development, marketing, and much more."
I think that establishes it's not just "one of many", and further that it has a recognised significance. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a chance to review the WSJ article I referenced, although since it's paywalled I can't give you the text without committing a copyright violatin. I'm comfortable that it establishes that LUGNet was hardly "one of many", although it does not, in and of itself, have enough details about why the site (and the fan community it engendered) was so unique and groundbreaking to support an article all by itself. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter 10 of this book is about online communities. LUGNET is the first site covered, and it's covered in enough detail to flesh out the current article substantially... Amazon gives a better view, go here then search inside for LUGNET and go to page 367. I'd challenge the nom to find another LEGO related site of the pre 2005 era that has this level of coverage. As the authors put it, "LUGNET is the voice of the LEGO fan" (emphasis theirs) ++Lar: t/c 06:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book Brick by Brick (ISBN9781847941152) mentions LUGNET in several places as the place where people went to discuss LEGO... the construction is typically "LUGNET and other sites" with most or all of the other sites unnamed. It also discusses how LUGNET played a role in seminal developments. For example, the first fan developed languages NQC and LeJOS for the RCX programmable brick, and in fact the initial reverse engineering of the firmware, were facilitated by discussions on LUGNET. ++Lar: t/c 06:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I initially stated that it appeared to be one of many, which can seem true from an outside-looking-in perspective and given the sources that were available to me at the time. However, I also stated in our discourse that the absolute size of the website's userbase was ultimately irrelevant. Why you keep using this side argument in bad faith is beyond me. What really matters, as I stated repeatedly, is WP:GNG and coverage of the site itself. Therefore, thank you for providing further sources on exactly this matter. I will review them and their contents once I find the time to do so. IceWelder [✉] 08:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to the popular culture article is a poor second choice, because of the influence LUGNet had on LEGO and on brand marketing, and on collaboration with customers... all of that will be lost. But it's better than outright deletion. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can this influence (reliably documented, of course) be added to the article, then? ~EdGltalk 00:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's the issue that it might overpower the rest of the article/section. It also might find a home in brand community or similar. (that lumpiness is not a reason not to do a merge instead of an outright delete if there isn't a keep consensus) ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having browsed the books linked above, it is apparent that there are plenty of sources testifying to this community's importance. It is interesting to note how this volunteer community has gone from being vital to being dormant. Wikipedia has trouble maintaining its vigour too and vexatious nominations like this are part of the problem. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The comment at the top of this page on the LA Times article is way too dismissive. This is the LA Times, not some random blog, and "freelance journalist" is a strange pejorative here — it's not like this is medium dot com or something. From the author's LinkedIn bio he was a reporter for legitimate local and regional newspapers in the early 90s and a staff reporter for the LA Times from 1997-1998 and the LA Daily News from 1999-2000 before going freelance. I assume the intent of saying "freelance journalist" was to imply that the article isn't legitimate in some way, but that's really off base. Anyway, there are plenty of references and the potential is there for many more. The fact is this was a significant early Internet community with impact on both LEGO fandom (and arguably the renewed success of LEGO itself as a company and brand) and on Internet community discussion culture at large. Matthew Miller (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
promotional article based entirely upon non reliable sources, such as mere notices, or promotional interviews in sources that specialize in publishing PR. The Forbes item is by a "former contributor", and therefor now recognized not to be a RS, DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The earlier now deleted version of article was made by a declared paid editor " done for a third-party online agency" without the detailed specification as now required --it wasn't required when the article was started in 2013. The current version was made by an spa who has edited essentially nothing else, and somehow managed to create this in mainspace before being autoconfrmed. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:22, 25 January 2021 (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.
Formerly a redirect, this is a recently created WP:Content fork. Such duplication is bad for many reasons, one being that it makes maintaining quality much harder. This article was created by copying much of the History section of Homosexuality and by copying some material from Gay. This should be deleted and redirected to Homosexuality.
The argument for its existence appears to be that this is a necessary parallel to Lesbian. That does not follow, however. Wikipedia treats topics in the manner reliable sources do, and sometimes they treat a topic as it pertains to women, but not to men, as a separate subtopic. For example, we have Women in STEM fields and not Men in STEM fields; Women in Islam and not Men in Islam. So it is with lesbians and gay men. One can see that the content of this article does not justify its existence as an independent topic. Crossroads-talk- 05:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am not fool enough to get involved in this much, but I will observe that it wasn't all that long ago that the LG of LGBT stood for Lesbians as female and Gays as male. And given the complications of the argument and the great changes in theorizing over time, I'm not convinced that an AfD is the place to fight out what I am given to understand is fundamental point of dispute. I feel an RfC might be a better approach. Mangoe (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m confused by the nom’s rationale comparing a page about gay men to a page about Men in Stem, esp. considering the history of violence gay men specifically have faced over history. At least in American English, gay is basically now a synonym for homosexual, so gay men clearly is an overdue and necessary parallel to lesbian. VirginiaBeach78 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That violence and discrimination is for being gay (i.e. their homosexuality); that doesn't prove that this is a distinct topic. Crossroads-talk- 20:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi dear, I would point you to one of the first lines in the article on lesbians: "Throughout history, women have not had the same freedom or independence as men to pursue homosexual relationships, but neither have they met the same harsh punishment as homosexual men in some societies." Now, if gay men were persecuted solely for their homosexuality, such distinctions in the experiences between gay men and lesbians would not exist! VirginiaBeach78 (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re: the nominator’s point that the content of the article is largely reliant on sections from homosexuality and gay, that is only because the article was made less than a week ago. Moving forward, the full article (away from a horrible redirect) could clearly expand to recount the broader history of gay men in history, the psycho-social history of gay male identity formation, the 20th century history of gay bar raids, figures like Harvey Milk, the community split between gay men and lesbians during the period of Radical feminism, the AIDS crisis’ effects on gay men (and lesbians’ role in providing support during that period), the creation of the LGBT community, and the contemporary sociological and legal landscape of countries which explicitly ban male homosexuality. The article is short and needs a lot of work, but clearly deletion is not the answer to addressing these huge questions. Neither gay nor homosexual is a suitable synonym for gay men, and in my opinion, anything other than a full article is not sufficient. Garcia1865 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is the user that spun out the article originally. I agree that the original redirect target was not ideal, but that doesn't affect the rationale above. Crossroads-talk- 20:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, just so I understand correctly. Your suggestion is that the entirety of the cultural, social, and political history of gay men should be expressed on Wikipedia by a redirect to homosexuality? Honestly, I think your suggested redirect is EVEN WORSE than what it was before. Garcia1865 (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agree with arguments above. Homosexual ≠ gay men. Gay men need their own page. Jpesch95 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, which is the standard we should be applying here. To give three random sources from the vast numbers available:
None of these sources is in the article yet, but notability is of course determined by what sources exist, and there are plenty that discuss gay men as a group apart from lesbians. (Side note: the article Homosexuality veers into discussing only gay men at times, which is odd: e.g. when it says Some synonyms for same-sex attraction or sexual activity include men who have sex with men.) YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a much simpler article to read and follow than Homosexuality. Harvey Milk Day is appreciated worldwide. Expunging convictions for gay crimes is being taken up in many countries. It's a new world, a world of respect. Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gay men and lesbians each make up a part of the people who are called "homosexual", I think covering the male experience in an article is a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problem seems to be duplicated content from homosexuality. But the article homosexuality is already over 170 kilobytes long, material about gay men can be moved from there to this article. JIP | Talk 21:49, 31 January 2021 (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 article is a SPLIT and duplicate of Aikatsu Planet!#Episodes, I originally redirected the article back to the page it was duplicating as an alternative to deletion, but the redirect was reverted. Someday it may merit a SPLIT, but not at this point. // Timothy :: talk 04:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent article per above. desmay (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent, per above. Link20XX (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back Not enough content to warrant a split. Opencooper (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back we should include the summaries that are currently on the episode list article but not tjr main series article.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Content was never removed from article, so everything is already there. No objection to redirect. // Timothy :: talk 22:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I assumed since the material was transcluded after the it would be identical, but the short summaries are not showing on the target. // Timothy :: talk 03:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2021 (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.
Non-notable primary school. Onel5969TT me 03:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. The nominator apparently either didn't read or didn't pay attention to my edit summary for deprodding, so allow me to copy it here for the benefit of other readers: Has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald are Australia's "papers of record", and they do not give the kind of coverage given here for run-of-the-mill schools; this is the national equivalent of, say, two NYT articles. Primary schools do not have the *presumption* of notability, but they're notable if they pass other standards, and Erasmus passes GNG.Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Incorrectly nominated. WP:INTROTODELETE explains that it is not sufficient-to give a one phrase exclaimation. (#Competence) The closer requires reasons, in this case why the 16 references given do not count as GNG. ClemRutter (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ClemRutter. Page satisfies GNG and contains signif coverage. Cabrils (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2021 (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.
Lack of details; most of this article is written as if it were an advertisement for this fragrance. A product from a notable person does not make it notable. Per WP:GNG this article does not satisfy "significant coverage", and sources in this article are also dubious in terms of reliability (Us Magazine, People, Hollywood Life) HĐ (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taylor Swift#Product endorsements per HĐ's reasoning. It is a viable search term that is already discussed in that part of the article, but there is not enough coverage to meet notability requirements. Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2021 (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. Sandstein 07:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be any other notable objects in this section of the sky. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the reason for redirecting. Note also that the article was originally created as a redirect to Carbon planet (which PSR J1719−1438 b has been described as). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are just coordinates on the sky- there is no notability whatsoever that would justify this as an article topic. No need for a redirect either unless there is some clear evidence that the pulsar is referred to in scientific literature or in notable popular sources by this specific string of coordinate digits. Aldebarium (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page makes no attempt to establish notability. I think it should have been a speedy delete. It would just be crazy to have pages that are merely coordinates, even as redirects. If we have pages for RA & Dec, why not additional pages for galactic and ecliptic coordinates of every astronomical object? And B1950 coordinates...PopePompus (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2021 (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. No specific redirect target suggested, but creating a redirect is always possible. Geschichte (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2021 (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.
Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:ISWP:RSWP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. SNo sources in the article. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV, directory and database listings etc. // Timothy :: talk 00:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Colomiers. The article contains no sources, and a search finds only routine coverage, including in one case an article about the school's utensils. Looks like a run-of-the-mill school to me, and it fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Deutsche Schule Toulouse, with whom it shares a campus. interrelationships between the various schools supported by Aerospatial are complex, finding references in any of the 6 languages is very timeconsuming. WP:MILL is not a valid reason for deletion- just an essay, a POV- and even if it were, it could not apply to a school in France that teaches an English A level syllabus, and if memory serves me right (back 30 years) it also taught an American syllabus and fed into US universities.ClemRutter (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2021 (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.
^Resolution to Encourage Review of the Record of SFC Jorge Otero Barreto. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). National Assembly of the 2017 LULAC National Convention. 8 July 2017. Accessed 9 January 2021. Quote: "WHEREAS, SFC Otero Barreto was awarded 38 military decorations making him the 'most decorated soldier in the Vietnam War...' "
^Membership Notes: A VVA Staff Report: Memorials. The VVA Veteran. Vietnam Veterans of America (an orgnaization sponsored by the United States Congress). December 2000/January 2001. Archived 5 October 2013. Quote: Two new Massachusetts [VVA] chapters carry the names of local heroes...Springfield Chapter 866 carries the name of SFC Jorge Otero-Barreto, the most decorated Puerto Rican veteran.
