Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 23 January 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Galleazzi[edit]

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

This article currently has no references. The only reference I can find is the artist's own website and a site selling her self published books. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of payment systems[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a price comparison website. The article admits the list is necessarily incomplete, and the pricing data could change routinely which suggests this isn't encyclopedic in nature. ZimZalaBim talk 23:04, 24 January 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

São Tomé and Príncipe–Turkey relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really is not much to these relations. There's a small historical interaction. No embassies, agreements, state visits. Level of trade is very small. The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs doesn't say much [1] LibStar (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be pretty much a non-subject. Two of the four sources cited are the same web page, which mainly says that neither country has an ambassador for the other. Maproom (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication that relations between these two countries are anything special or warranting a dedicated article. If anything the lengthy list of external sources suggests a stronger connection between Portugal and Sao Tome and Principe - I don't see Turkey mentioned in the titles. The treaties mentioned in the article were signed between dozens of countries, and the treaty articles don't highlight anything specifically about Turkey and Sao Tome and Principe, so no special sign of notability. The Jewish diaspora to the Ottoman Empire during the Inquisition could be mentioned in other articles, if necessary. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tim Templeton. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another one of these articles with no content for a non existent relationship. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League Baseball players who committed suicide[edit]

Minor League Baseball players who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

That's one bizarre topic for a list: somehow, major leaguers are excluded from the scope so we're left with little-known baseball players that (rightfully) don't have an article on Wikipedia. The source [2] is used quite a bit on Wikipedia so on one hand I'm tempted to assume that it is considered reliable but on the other hand, looking through the site, a lot of its content is newspaper clippings which is useful for us but doesn't really say much about the site's reliability. Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question the relevance of that list too. It's a pretty arbitrary intersection. Something like List of boxers who committed suicide would make a bit of sense because of research showing potential links between suicide risk and chronic traumatic encephalopathy. There's no evidence that playing baseball and dying by suicide are in any way related so List of baseball players who committed suicide is as irrelevant as List of architects who committed suicide and List of baseball players who died in a car crash. Pichpich (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pichpich and WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Muboshgu....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no evidence that these form a group, and there is no evidence that any reliable source has ever though to think of these as a group. This is before we deal with the other problem that basically none of the people on the list are even notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Ridiculous. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination. The presence of this kind of list is bizarre. Spf121188 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as in nom and nom's comment above. yikes. -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absurd that this exists in the first place.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, highly problematic page, no encyclopedic need for grouping the persons. Geschichte (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usage model[edit]

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

Article is premature; its creator translated it from a German page, and later nominated it for speedy deletion on the grounds that it should wait until others had a chance to write about the subject in secondary sources, as currently (2017) it was novel, and secondary sources had not had a chance. The German article was subsequently deleted, and with no offence to our German colleagues, standards of notability tend to be higher here, so it is dubious here too. Most of what I can find that quotes the current primary literature sources is written by the author of the primary literature, self-citing, and I'm not convinced that this has evolved into something notable. But it's outside my field, so I accept I may be completely wrong. Elemimele (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up: so far as I can make out, the German article was written by JudithHill describing recent work/ideas published by a colleague at the university of Wuppertal, and immediately translated by her for the English Wikipedia. It was almost immediately deleted from German WP on the grounds similar to TOSOON, and to do JudithHill justice, she fully endorsed this decision, supporting the German deletion. I see it as an accident that the simultaneous deletion of the English version got forgotten. I don't think the concepts that her colleague, Sigmund Schimanski, developed have become sufficiently notable for an English article, though it's hard to tell from simple Googling as the phrase is so non-specific. A new German article hasn't been written, so presumably either JudithHill is no longer interested, or feels she has too much COI to write it. Elemimele (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this seems to be based on a small number (3, if I've counted correctly) of recent articles by one person. It isn't clear to me if this "usage model" is really a thing or not, but I agree with the TOOSOON determination. Lamona (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Leaving aside the claims about the corresponding de.wiki article, the only usage of usage model seems to be by one research team in three articles. This does not demonstrate that the term has entered scholarly discourse. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:59, 30 January 2022 (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. Tone 23:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell comma[edit]

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

I cannot seem to find anything to make this notable under WP:GNG. TartarTorte 21:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In researching this I was saddened to find that Gene Ward Smith had passed away in early 2021 before vaccines became available. He's the mathematician, music theorist, and fellow UC Berkeley grad who coined the term, among others. Looks like his page[3] and that of the Brahms Gang[4] used to be here but fell short of the notability bar, so what chance does this obscure piece of microtonal nomenclature have? There's a passing mention in Weber's book "How Complexity Shapes the World" but not WP:SIGCOV. Hoping others can find more than I was. BBQboffin (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Amir[edit]

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

None of the cited sources show significant coverage (all are user generated and/or lyrics websites). This source doesn't seem to even mention Famous Amir. A Persian source search yielded next to nothing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter, Facebook, Spotify, Wikipedia and Popnable are all unacceptable and unreliable sources... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 28 January 2022 (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 / nom withdrawn. Clearly my BEFORE was broken. Star Mississippi 00:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SME Limited[edit]

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

This is a long standing company, but outside of this source about whose standing as a reliable source I'm unclear, I'm unable to find anything to meet the depth required for WP:ORG. In the article and a BEFORE revealed run of the mill announcements to be expected of a 75 year old company/ Star Mississippi 20:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Courtesy @Ron Ritzman and DGG: as PROD/speedy decliners. Star Mississippi 20:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Home Theater Review is a perfectly respectable source. The question is whether sources exist, not whether they are available online. Rathfelder (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also agree that Home Theare Review is a good in-depth article. I found 3 more citations in Google Books and have added them. MartinWilder (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. they probably are notable as developers of a very important standard in the field DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough citations was provided by above voters. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2022 (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. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandrembi Chaisra[edit]

Sandrembi Chaisra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am neutral, filing as closer of this RfD, where I found consensus to revert Rosguill's BLAR of 22 January 2020 and send to AfD instead. Rosguill's BLAR rationale was

Doesn't seem to meet GNG and is very confusingly written, redirecting to Meetei folklore which mentions the story

to which AFreshStart objected on the basis that Sandrembi Chaisra is not mentioned there.

Courtesy pings to all RfD !voters: @Lenticel, Aervanath, Uanfala, SnowFire, and Mdewman6: -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up. It was quite correct that this was sent here instead of surreptitiously deleted-by-redirect, but (1) AfD is not clean-up, and (2) things should be deleted if it is likely that there will be no sources, or if they are so, so dreadful that an absolutely fresh start is necessary. In this case sources are likely to be available (based on its presence in [5] and [6]), and although the article is in dire need of good writing, it's not totally irredeemable. The character-list, info-box and popular-culture sections are a good start; what it really needs is a comprehensible, coherent plot-summary and some better referencing. Elemimele (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would a transwiki from the simple wikipedia version suffice? --Lenticel (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Import from Simple English Wikipedia. It will still need to be cleaned up (and the story section pared down, I think), but it's much better than our current version, and with MUCH better sources.-- Aervanath (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone writes it up from scratch. The article has serious sourcing and comprehensibility issues, and it was written by a sockfarm known for POV. The article on simple wiki seems in a much better shape, but it was written by the same sockpuppets after they got blocked here, so this means: 1) if the article is imported it will be eligible for WP:G5 speedy deletion, 2) the doubts around sourcing and neutrality will remain. If the topic is notable (and that's what we're supposed to be finding out here), then we're better off creating the article from scratch. – Uanfala (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the simple version might have been written by a sock, but it's a decent article; we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we deleted it because of its authorship. We have the right to delete the products of socks, but not the obligation. If anyone doubts its neutrality, we have tags for that sort of thing. Elemimele (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. But the relevant point here is not that the article was created by a sock, the point is that it was created by a sock with content issues. If another wikipedian is willing to take ownership of that article – if they're willing to check for copyright violations and then examine the sources to see if it doesn't misrepresent them in some subtle way – then absolutely, let's import it here. But it's not enough if it just looks "decent". – Uanfala (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT there is nothing here that is worth saving under any ATD nor anything that is comprehensible in English. If there is such a "myth element", there are no sources available in the article or in searches that demonstrate such exists. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sreejith Guruvayur[edit]

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

A makeup artist with no evidence of notability and fails WP:GNG. Also the article does not have a single reliable source. Onmyway22 talk 16:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onmyway22 talk 20:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not pass WP:GNG- this article has one source which when you open says,'Page not found'. insignificant coverage and literally lacks reference to other secondary sources, which puts its notability in question.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Body In Balance[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage of the channel that demonstrates its notability outside of the paywalled Telegraph article. There's also a WP:TNT case with most of the content. The company seems to have ambled on over the last decade without notability; if there's any, it's in the 2007–11 period. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transhuman Coin[edit]

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

The sources are not independent (either self-published or published by an organization the article says has a relationship with the subject), and remaining sources are listings, etc. Cannot confirm notability. (Also, what does the lede even mean??) Singularity42 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Jonathanewoods!. The issue isn't whether the business exists. The issue is whether it is notable, a requirement for a Wikipedia article: WP:Notability. Singularity42 (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2022 (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, withdrawn. Geschichte (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Bonnie[edit]

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

Non-notable musician and reality TV personality. Sourcing does not establish WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amirul Syafik[edit]

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

Deleted previously for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains relevant. The two new references added are passing mentions only. Malaysian searches of Amirul Syafik and the alternative spelling of Amirul Shafik yielded very little. Passing mentions like Kosmo and Utusan don't cut it. This article shouldn't be restored until a clear amount of WP:SIGCOV is demonstrated. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 24 January 2022 (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. Tone 23:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Binger[edit]

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

Biography for a non-notable playmate (possibly, redirect it to some playboy models list) damiens.rf 18:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it's the same person, she could be included in the Grady Sizemore article, a person with her name married Mr. Sizemore. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not have a personal life section on Mr. Sizemore at present. While he may have married this this Ms. Binger, if all the evidence we have for that "is a person with this same name", instead of "we have a source that says Mr. Sizemore married a woman who had been photographed professionally and included in published magazines", or other wording to indicate a connection other than the same name, we should not go based just on the same name, because if we do we might be creating the Frankenstein's Monster article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a Playmate of the Month is notable in modeling. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite incorrect. Only 3 of the 12 listed in the "Playboy Playmates of 2007" template on her page have articles, and 1 (Tamara Sky) should be an easy deletion next. Being a Playmate may have been a criteria of the old WP:PORNBIO notability guide, but that was deleted ages ago. Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable pinup girl, nothing but the Playboy spread and some gossip mags. Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2022 (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. Aside from nominator, consensus is GNG met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants Delicatessen[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Article does not credibly indicate any basis of notability ('Green' and women-owned?). Fails WP:NCORP. Announcements of branch openings don't contribute towards notability. What coverage there is seems to be PR-based, and local in readership. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). I've written ~40 Good articles about restaurants in Portland, so I'd like to think I have a good understanding of notability criteria and what types of coverage and claims are needed for a quality entry. I agree that the article's current text should be improved to more clearly indicate notability. However, this nomination is NOT an assessment of secondary coverage overall. When I do some online searching, I can see plenty of content to add. In my opinion, we should be able to expand the article with the basic building blocks of a company/restaurant article, based on sourcing: Description, History, Locations, and Reception, focusing on company growth and milestones, operational history (including openings and closures), recognition, etc. Also, asserting coverage is only local is unfair... I see books, magazine, journals, and even plenty to add from The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. The article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator, here's my assessment of the sources as they were as of this edit:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Curb Safe Charmer
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20131109023037/http://1859oregonmagazine.com/restaurant-elephants-deli No Probably provided by the company Yes No A single paragraph listing and the address and opening times of the branches ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=ijt8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT35 Yes Yes ? Three paragraphs in a Portland restaurant guide ? Unknown
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-4689-elephants-on-parade.html Yes Established food critic Yes No Opening of a new branch; local coverage ✘ No
https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2001/03/26/smallb1.html No PR piece, with quotes from the manager Yes Yes decent length article ✘ No
https://pamplinmedia.com/scc/124-business/157812-elephants-deli-opens-on-corbett No Almost entirely quoting the CEO Yes No Opening of a new branch ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/g66l-2019/09/1b695416dc9728/here-are-99-great-places-to-work-in-oregon-and-sw-washington-top-workplaces-2019.html No employers or their employees entered the competition Yes No 99 out of 147 employers who were entered into the competition are listed ✘ No
https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/subscriber-only/2021/09/10/largest-women-owned-businesses.html No "Information was obtained from firm representatives through questionnaires" No "Information ... could not be independently verified by the Portland Business Journal" No To be listed, company just has to be based in Oregon and Clark County, and have more than one woman shareholder ✘ No
https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/rhine-tanzer-inc-15da978791203ea66a06bb50a090324a Yes Yes No Parent company in a listing of companies approved for federal loans ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2012/07/elephants_in_the_park_grill_op.html No Yes No Four short paragraphs on the opening of a new branch ✘ No
https://www.wweek.com/promotions/2020/07/21/food-drink-restaurants/ No Says 'sponsored content' ? No best catering service in a reader's poll ✘ No
https://www.oregonbusiness.com/100best/green/item/19321-2021-100-best-green-workplaces-in-oregon No "Companies interested in entering the survey should contact Kim Moore, research editor ..." Yes No 200 winners out of 422 entrants ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've assessed current sourcing, but not all available sourcing. Searching "Elephants Delicatessen" at the Oregonian archives from 1987 to present at the Multnomah County Library yields 183 results. Searching the "historical" database for 1861 to 1987 yields an additional 97 returns. Also, quite a few things to add from Google Books. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Another Believer, it looks like you've written about 75% of this article. The AfD process is here to evaluate the article that exists, or perhaps the article as it is improved during the process. Sure, if there are available sources that could tip the scales to "clearly notable" that should influence whether an AfD is filed, or failing that, should influence how it's improved to assure a "keep" outcome. But I'm not clear on how a general finding of hundreds of sources, without any evaluation of which, if any, are relevant or useful, contributes to the AfD process. Are you planning to use this information to make substantial improvements to the article during the AfD? Or do you see potential in one or two of the sources to make such improvements, but lack the time to do it yourself in the short term? A hint of what these sources say to you might be helpful here. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you're saying/requesting here, but actually AfD is not only for evaluating the current article. WP:BEFORE asks editors to search for sourcing not in the current article prior to nominating an article for deletion. Perhaps the nominator did so, but I too have done some digging and I disagree with their assessment for the reasons noted above. Honestly?, I don't plan on dropping what I'm working on just to rescue this entry. My life goes on just fine if Elephants Deli doesn't have a Wikipedia article. But, I've written enough of these entries to know there's plenty to use to create a quality Wikipedia entry. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wikipedians don't have access to the Oregonian archives. I do, I looked at a random sample (the most recent of the 183 articles in that archive from each of the decades mentioned) and none was pertinent to the present discussion. Finding a high quality source takes work, and if you feel that more such work is needed, but you are unwilling to do it, to me that sounds like you're leaning toward "delete." (For myself, I don't really have an opinion about whether or not there are enough sources there as of now.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I may not enter a !vote here, but I want to point out several flaws in Curb Safe Charmer's assessment of sources above. The Portland Business Journal is a serious newspaper with strong editorial standards; the presence of quotes from the company's personnel in no way undermines the independence of its coverage. See here for a detailed look at PBJ's editorial practices. Willamette Week is also a serious publication, and its "Best Of..." series is not sponsored content; I do not see that term on the page, and I suspect you may have seen it associated with an ad that ran on the page, rather than referring to the page itself. Oregon Business is also a serious publication, and the article specifically enumerates the methodology of the survey, something that non-journalistic surveys generally do not do; the ability of a company to enter a survey no more corrupts the survey itself than my ability to self-nominate an article for GA or FA undermines the integrity of the GA or FA process. The fact that the Business Journal disclosed that it had not fact-checked company disclosures is a point in favor of its methodology (transparency to readers); if Elephants declared that it had 280 employees at that time, the lack of a rigorous fact-check does not suggest that the number might be completely outlandish. The prevalence of mistaken assumptions about these sources suggests either a lack of familiarity with the field of journalism and its standards, or possibly an agenda of some kind. So this chart, which should be a useful tool for taking a sober look at the sources used, in this instance seems unhelpful for making a decision about this particular article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in here as well, Pete. I am going to step away from this discussion and let others contribute, but I have problems with some of the contents of the nominator's table as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pete Forsyth and Another Believer above. Forsyth makes some valid points about the sourcing. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreed that nominator's assessment/reasoning is lacking. --truflip99 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Perry, Sara (2005-03-06). "Taste makers Elephants on parade to a new location". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "For more than a quarter of a century, Elephants Delicatessen held center ring at the Uptown Shopping Center, it's original small space expanding ever outward as her store's reputation grew as the place for gourmet foods, wines, unusual ingredients and catering, as well as informed advice on any of the above. Tanzer began her deli out of sheer chutzpah. ..."

    2. Johnston, Sonja (2005-05-19). "Elephants Delicatessen's new location hasn't forgotten wedding rehearsals". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The restaurant review notes: "Elephants Delicatessen is known for beautifully prepared and delicious take-out and catered foods, as well as sense of style with French flair. ... The room's wainscoted walls are topped by multi-paned windows with views of leafy green trees. Urns of flowers provide seasonal color."

    3. Russell, Michael (2020-09-12). "Elaine Tanzer, 'visionary' behind Elephants Delicatessen, dies at 77". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "According to Jim Dixon, the reformed food writer-turned-specialty foods guru at Northeast Portland’s Real Good Food, there just “wasn’t much else” in Portland when Elephants hit the scene. “It’s not like today when you can go into Whole Foods or New Seasons or even Fred Meyer and find interesting cheeses,” Dixon said. “You might find an aged white cheddar from Tillamook. But unless you went to a restaurant, unusual things were not widely available.”"

    4. Butler, Grant (2005-04-08). "Dining Elephants Deli's new digs shine". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "I was never particularly taken with the old location of Elephants Delicatessen. It always felt cramped, and while I admired the food, it was strictly a place to grab and go, not sit and enjoy. That changed last month, when the shop moved three blocks east into the enormous digs vacated last year by Il Fornaio restaurant. Now, Elephants feels like a glorious Parisian market, the sort of place where you might sit and enjoy a light meal before dashing off to an afternoon at the Louvre."

    5. Crain, Liz (2014). Food Lover's Guide to Portland. Portland: Hawthorne Books. ISBN 978-0-9904370-1-7. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The book notes: "Elephants Delicatessen has been in business since 1979, and like a good elephant, it's been slowly growing for many years as a PDX catering and food and drink depot. What sets Elephants apart is its ready-make selection. The Northwest Elephants is the largest location by far, with the most diverse offerings. In fact, the Northwest Elephants usually feels like a food festival taste pavilion."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Elephants Delicatessen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Y. Zhang[edit]

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

having googled about her in both english and chinese, i'm afraid she doesnt seem to have more notable achievements than other professors of philosophy. RZuo (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete subject to further information. chairman of a department is not necessarily a notable position. The books are all in Chinese, and I have no way of evaluating them. They don't show up in WorldCat, but that is not necessarily meaningful . Hong Cong Baptist Univeristy is respectable, a/c the ratings, but the famous research university in HK is University of Hong Kong, followed by Chinese University of Hong Kong. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Zhang's common two-character name makes it more difficult to narrow down coverage about her specifically (there are at least four other professors I found in greater China with her name), so I spent a bit of time trying to find more coverage, but unfortunately, I do not think she passes the GNG or PROF muster based on Chinese sources. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I conducted further searches for sources and could not find enough coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2022 (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 Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 15)[edit]

Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced TV series article. Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 14:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't speak Polish so can't speak to the quality of the sources, but just wanted to flag that the main page for this show links to season-specific pages for most of the series, so if the consensus is that this page isn't notable, presumably all the similar ones could also be deleted or merged into the main page. --CameronVictoria (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate one shouldn't be parochial, but I can't see any point in having an article with the Polish name as its title. Presumably anyone who can understand the article's title can also read the Polish WP's article on the subject, and anyone who cannot, will have no idea what the article is about anyway, which renders it utterly pointless to our English-speaking readers. Given that the natural language of English WP is English, it should at least be moved to an English-titled article (e.g. Your face sounds familiar (Season 15) (Polish TV show)), unless it is commonly known in the English-speaking sphere by its Polish name; and if moving it renders it meaningless, it probably isn't notable. Elemimele (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Each of the previous seasons has its own article, and most of them have only a single reference. So there is no rationale for deleting this one that doesn't apply to all the others. Whether they SHOULD have independent articles, and whether it is appropriate to have a Polish title for them, can be discussed elsewhere, probably at the parent article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should apply all the others. It not acceptable for articles not to have references. The standard to pass Afd is WP:THREE. This article doesn't meet that. It does have one reference. Every part of it should be referenced. It is more than a question of fairness. A lot of these folks don't seem to want to put references in. They would rather copy the content from the source, like as happened here and leave as is. That is unacceptable in 2022. Saying they have a single reference doesn't escape the problem. The article was redirected twice, by different editor's and this editor, who has talk page full red warnings, edit warred to bring it and doesn't communicate. I'll get the rest of them in. scope_creepTalk 11:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss GizzyCatBella's merger suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was planning on nominating the rest of them, but forgot about the afd. The analysis above seems to be valid. The statistics in each of these articles have been copied verbatim from the page, for example in Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 1). I will add them all to this Afd as a group. scope_creepTalk 23:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because I believe they should be part of this Afd as they are effectively unsourced: 
scope_creepTalk 23:48, 24 January 2022 (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. Tone 23:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Ganger[edit]

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

Stub article with no evidence of notability. McPhail (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the sources relate to his involvement in the shooting, which suggests WP:SINGLEEVENT applies. Is he notable outside of his involvement in a single event? I'd suggest not. McPhail (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I have written, I have written. We see this differently. You already said your piece. I don't need you to badger me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly badgering. Questioning responses in AfDs is standard to make sure the argument holds up. If the WP:SINGLEEVENT point can't be addressed then it kinda undermines your keep vote. — Czello 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I have written, I have written. We see this differently. You already said your piece. I don't need you to badger me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't tag me. As for your comment, I understand what you are trying to do, but you are unaware of the long-term context, so your comment misses the mark a bit. Thank you for your vote. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2022 (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. Sources brought forth are unchallanged, indicating GNG is met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan (band)[edit]

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

A previous AfD for this band was closed a few hours ago as "no consensus" because the nominator kept changing his/her mind and seems unfamiliar with the consensus process. The closing admin said No prejudice against speedy renomination so here it is. I voted to delete this band the first time, for the following reason. Despite a long career and many albums, it appears that significant and reliable coverage has eluded this band. They have a bare-bones listing at AllMusic but none of the albums have staff reviews. They get occasional unreliable blog reviews (e.g. [7], [8]) but even those are rare. Beyond that I can only find some basic retail listings, even when searching for the band's name in conjunction with the founding members' names. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the reliable sources/reviews above, which look like are more than enough meet guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I also searched for only one album. More sources await on the others. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, as issue that brought article to AfD has been addressed. (non-admin closure) Singularity42 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorrit van der Kooi[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Seemed to be a weak WP:BLP1E (subject interviewed a person, and the person interviewed was shot on a later date, survived, and speculated it might have been due to the interview?). Editor who disputed PROD pointed out there is a corresponding article on the Dutch Wikipedia, but that other article has no reliable sources noted and none can be found by a Google search). Singularity42 (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:TNT without prejudice against re-creation. Kudos to Singularity42 for nominating! While Van der Kooi may be notable (for example he was kept in the nlwiki AfD-like procedure), this article is written with a focus on the death of Elvis Presley. An extremely obscure and random connection is the center piece and clearly the motivation behind this article. In other words, this Dutch media BLP was hijacked and should be (as-is) deleted. I did not find a great redirect target. CERTAINLY it should not be redirected to anything related to the death of Presley! gidonb (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC) An anonymous editor resolved my main concern. gidonb (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eazy (musician)[edit]

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

Non notable musician failing WP:NMUSIC. A BEFORE doesn’t provide anything. Xclusivzik (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 30 January 2022 (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 Fencing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team épée. No support for keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Wgullyn (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Heim[edit]

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

Heim was a competitor in the 1936 Olympics. We source this to an exhaustive source. We decided last October that only Olympic medalists are default notable, others have to either pass another inclusion criteria or clearly pass GNG. My searches turned up things like LinkedIn pages on other people with this name, but no additional sourcing on this Marcel Heim. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now also checked the LA84 Foundation's digital library (here), which contains a ton of Olympic-related material. Didn't find any SIGCOV of Heim there either. If you or others come up with something, I'm happy to reconsider. . . . and, frankly, even if it gets deleted and something then turns up later, it's not as though we've lost anything since the article consists of one line of narrative text. Cbl62 (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2022 (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 Field hockey at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Switzerland. Boldly, as there clearly is no support for keeping this as an article, and since I've just dealt with the rest... (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Zumstein[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete who participated in one Olympics and got no medals. Wgullyn (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. My searches did not turn up any SIGCOV. The best I found is this which simply confirms that he was on the Swiss field hockey team that finished seventh out of nine teams competing at the 1928 Olympics. If researchers later dig up SIGCOV, this could be recreated without the loss of substance (the narrative text here is less than 15 words). Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This article was part of a batch creation of 11 identical, cookie-cutter, one-line sub-stubs on members of the same 1928 Swiss field hockey team that finished seventh of nine teams. All were created within a 13-minute span as follows:
(1) Charles Piot (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:37),
(2) Ernst Luchsinger (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:38),
(3) Édouard Mauris (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:40),
(4) Fred Jenny (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:41)
(5) Henri Poncet (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:42),
(6) Jean-Jacques Auberson (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:42),
(7) Werner Fehr (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:42),
(8) Zumstein (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:45);
(9) Maurice Magnin (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:45),
(10) Roland Olivier (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:46), and
(11) Adalbert Koch (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:50).
The purported claim to notability is their participation on the 1928 Switzerland men's national field hockey team, and there isn't even an article on that team. All 11 of these sub-stubs should probably be deleted IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with User:Cbl62 - none of these articles have any notability and it looks like they were all copy/pasted with only the names changed. Wgullyn (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 11. Just clarifying that my original delete vote applies to all 11 of the cookie-cutter articles listed above. Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No evidence of notability demonstrated for any of them. Also, three articles created in the same minute, and 11 in 13 minutes, suggests the creator didn't even check for notability before creating - which unfortunately means we are likely to waste more time debating their deletion than they did creating them. BilledMammal (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather false claim, as they all met the notability requirements when they were created. Unfortunately, those were changed about two years AFTER the pages were created. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DanCherek (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Brocket[edit]

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

Not very notable, and there only appears to be one good source. Almost nothing is known about their life, and the death date is an 11-year span. It appears since they were a Member of Parliament, they are considered notable - I withdraw this AfD. Wgullyn (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University System of Formosa[edit]

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

I've been searching on the internet, Taiwan does not have this university alliance, its Chinese name is same as Taiwan Comprehensive University System (TCUS), For not to be confused, request deletes this article. SUNSmania41 (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2022 (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 Contrast (Conor Maynard album). 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better than You (Conor Maynard song)[edit]

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

The song is not notable per WP:NSONGS. Although charting is suggested as one of the factors that may make a song notable, this needs to come in addition to coverage from reliable sources about the song as an independent body of work. Some coverage could be taken from the album's page but there is not enough prose to warrant this. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:42, 24 January 2022 (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 Let's Go Luna!. ✗plicit 12:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Luna!: Luna's Christmas Around the World[edit]

Let's Go Luna!: Luna's Christmas Around the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, lacking significant independent coverage per WP:NF. PROD removed by creator. wizzito | say hello! 10:58, 24 January 2022 (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. Tone 10:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Iyiegbu[edit]

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

BLP tagged for notability since July. The article makes no real claim of notability and the sources provided don’t suggest it either. I didn’t find anything else to help build a case for inclusion. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep  – The subject is famous for being rich but there's actually lots of coverage under his COMMONNAME; Obi Cubana. Princess of Ara 14:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that in sources you think are reliable and independent? Mccapra (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, [28][29][30] [31][32][33][34][35][36][37].

Keep  – something prompted me to search for his name and somehow, I found this wikipage. The entity is notable for philanthropic acts. I’ve moved the page to his known name. Reading BeansTalk to the Beans 07:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs clearer consensus especially with regard to sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Multiple reliable, third party, secondary sources that are explicitly about the subject exist, thus it meets WP:GNG. Fieari (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to my genuine surprise. There are multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as BBC News and Sahara Reporter. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:43, 30 January 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Loren[edit]

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

Fails NBIO - lacks SIGCOV in third party sources. Also apparent UPE. KH-1 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Penny Arcade[edit]

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

This article contains no secondary sources. I've not been able to find any that would indicate that this subject is notable enough for an article separate to the article on Penny Arcade. I propose merging some of this content over to the main article and deleting this one. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Science, Munich[edit]

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

It was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Science (2nd nomination) as unnotable, and I do not see the notability as stated in WP:ORG now either, as the article is written using the texts from IAS itself, not using RSs. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The sources are alarmingly bad and this article has been deleted before both here and on de-wiki. Here's a courtesy link to the German wp discussion, which... probably won't really help anyone, but will at least save you looking for it: [39]. The sole reliable, independent citation here as far as I can see is to Jean Dausset's obituary in Nature ([40]), which does not even mention the subject of this article. -- asilvering (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage that is significant is not in independent sources and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:35, 30 January 2022 (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. Tone 10:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Christian School[edit]

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

Sourcing wise this article is referenced to two websites that have nothing to do with the school and a dead link to a database entry. None of which work for notability. I couldn't find anything about the school when I did a WP:BEFORE either except for a few trivial name drops in two school directories. So this doesn't seem to be notable. Adamant1 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Private University of Angola[edit]

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

The article has been un-referenced since at least 2009 and I couldn't find anything about the university when I did a WP:BEFORE except for trivial name drops on a couple of school ranking websites. Which aren't usable for notability. There's an external link in the article, but it seems to be more of the same. So this doesn't appear to be notable. Adamant1 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Governing Body Commission[edit]

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

Another ISKCON WP:SPAM article about its management board created to promote its board members and sourced only from self published sites. Wikipedia does not have separate article for company boards, no valid reason for making an exception for this promotional org. Venkat TL (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Easily. Complete and utter lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The coverage is entirely in ISKON sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing significant coverage. The coverage is entirely in ISKON sources, making it primary. Also per Eggishorn —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Dans[edit]

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

Would have prodded, but already been deleted once through AfD. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 01:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of the criteria of WP:NPROF appear to apply. The closest is the claim that this person's blog has won awards but on closer inspection, one was a nomination and the other was a newspaper's "Best of" list. The sources necessary to comply with any other SNG or the GNG also appear to be lacking based on the article sources and searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 24 January 2022 (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 The Dallas Morning News. Sandstein 11:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborsgo[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable defunct local newspaper – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a plausible case for merging, but you need to make that case, not treat this as though it were a blatantly non-notable topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Edited 17:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sdkb: the first, from dallasnews.com, is from the publisher of Neighborsgo, so it doesn't work here. The third, from SNPA, is the first article republished. The only real source there is the D Magazine, but even that hardly counts as significant coverage. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 05:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I should've caught that the SNPA was republishing. On the first source, I disagree. It's a reported article by their business reporter, not a press release. It's clearly therefore behind their editorial firewall, the entire purpose of which is to ensure independence. The Dallas Morning News is a legacy newspaper that we can trust to maintain that separation.
    That said, even if it ends up clearing the GNG bar, there's clearly not that much to say about it, so I'm fine with turning it into a redirect to The Dallas Morning News and maybe adding a sentence about it there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking on Google Books, I see two mentions:
    • Briggs, Mark (2015). Journalism next : a practical guide to digital reporting and publishing (Third ed.). Washington, D.C. p. 105. ISBN 9781506311029.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
    • Turow, Joseph (2017). Media today : mass communication in a coverging world (6th ed.). New York, NY. p. 240. ISBN 9781317401032.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
    Both take the form of examples that are on the border of the WP:100 words threshold, so they don't move me away from a redirect stance. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah on further thought, I'm completely fine with your suggestion of a redirect to The Dallas Morning News, and I think a mention there is more than fair as well. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 02:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Dallas Morning News per above, as possibly worth a brief mention there. The book sources would be helpful for that purpose, but I don't see enough for a standalone article, especially given that the only coverage I seem to find in news sources is about it being shut down. --Kinu t/c 16:13, 27 January 2022 (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. Tone 12:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine 1 University[edit]

Constantine 1 University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference in the article is to another Wiki type website about the places architecture and I couldn't find anything else about it when I did a WP:BEFORE. Also the article about it in Arabic isn't any better. So I doubt this passes the notability guidelines. Maybe someone can find references I missed when I looked though. The rather ambiguous name really doesn't help things. Adamant1 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the above French chapter and English book (for a Brazilian architect working in Algeria), but also e.g. a complete Italian book[44]? Countless sources, just for the architecture. Probably some sources for its actual function as a university as well. Fram (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If all people can find are references about the building and architect instead of the university itself then create an article for the building. That doesn't mean the university is inherently notable just because one building on the campus or the guy who built it is. Hell, there could literally be a short mention of the building in the Oscar Niemeyer article. It's massively stupid to have a two sentence article about a university that's just on a building and nothing about the actual university though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then look for sources for the university and its activities as well... this, or this or this or this... Fram (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part of me saying that I did a WP:BEFORE makes you think I didn't look for sources? As far as your references that supposedly talk about it's activities, the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university. Let alone does it discuss it directly and in-depth. The second one barely does, a university adding programs is extremely WP:MILL. Woho they got 1,000 new students. You could find the same coverage for any university out there. The third and forth aren't any better. It should go without saying that my comment about how there should be information about the university in the article didn't mean adding trivial, run of the mill nonsense to it like the attendance increasing by 1,000 students in 2015. I've seen you make pretty reasonable and guideline based arguments in other AfDs. It shouldn't be that hard for you to do the same thing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't notable for being an university and thus getting attention for the things a university does. It also isn't notable for being widely, extensively discussed for its architecture. What next will you dismiss? If it only has the things a university has, then that doesn't count. If it does have an additional notable aspect (its architecture), then that should get a separate article and doesn't count towards notability for the university. Uh, no thanks, I won't play that game. Fram (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the university isn't notable for doing "things a university does." I said the references you provided don't show the university is notable because they are trivial, not in-depth, and otherwise WP:MILL. I'm sure you know the difference and what those terms mean. In the meantime I'd hardly say the university is "widely, and extensively discussed for its architecture" when the only thing being discussed about it is the auditorium and there isn't even wide or extensive discussion about that. For instance your wallpaper.com source is literally a single sentence. In no way what-so-ever is a single sentence an extensive, wide discussion. I find it extremely hard to believe that you genuinely think it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple edit conflicts, please make up your mind about what you want to write) The Wallpaper source is a reference for their being a full book about the architecture; the book is the important bit, the wallpaper source is just to show that it is not some amateur photography project but a notable book (hence my "as reviewed by..."). An earlier exposition of the same photos was also reviewed in the NY Times and in e.g. The Independent or Designweek. Oh, and The Architects journal as well... Fram (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware the book is a photo book of Oscar Niemeyer's architectural work, of which the auditorium is one of many things he's built. The book is not about the auditorium though and I doubt it covers the auditorium in any kind of meaningful detail beyond a couple of photos. Much like the references you keep providing that don't actually discuss the auditorium in any meaningful way. So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go back to my first post here perhaps, where I provided the extensive discussions of his work on this university? The photo book is just another indication of the notability of this university as a piece of architecture, and the book and exposition received a lot of coverage (from mainstream press, architecture press, ...). You seem to be willfully misinterpreting things here, which is tiring. Are you seriously still debating whether the university architecture by Oscar Niemeyer is notable, or what? Fram (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly have I willfully misinterpreted? I could really care if the auditorium is notable or not. I just don't think the single sentence articles you've cited shows that it is. Let alone does that have anything to with the notability of the university itself. Even if the auditorium is notable you haven't given a reason why the auditorium being notable makes the university notable or why keeping the article would be the best option compared to the other ones I've suggested. I'm sure you'd agree that a two sentence article about a university building isn't optimal. Even if I buy that the photo book indicates the notability of the university we can't just copy the images from it and call it good there. Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So a 15 page chapter isn't sufficient to write more than 2 sentences, a book which doesn't only have photos but also "further research into Niemeyer's Algerian work in order to explore the revolutionary politics that inspired and formed these buildings." isn't useful because despite the book being notable (but the evidence of this you mockingly reject), it contains pictures we can't use, and the other sources are not acceptable because they don't go into what makes this university more notable than a run of the mill one. You also mistakenly seem to insist that Niemeyer only built one building there, which (even though it still would be sufficient) is false, see e.g. here or here for more info. Oh, this book has two pages about "Oscar Niemeyer. The University of Constantine: Modern Kasbah of Higher Education" as well. Yeah, clearly something that only is worth "just mentioning somewhere else". I think I'm done with this quite ridiculous conversation. Fram (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When did I mockingly reject the book with the 15 page chapter? I'm pretty sure my last message is the only time I've brought it up and I didn't mock it anywhere in my message. As far as me supposedly insisting that Niemeyer only built the one building, from what I saw the articles about the picture book only mentioned the auditorium and that's what I was discussing. Obviously I'm not going to discuss buildings that the references I'm referring to had nothing to do with. In the meantime I couldn't access the book with the 15 page chapter. So I'm not going to act like I know what buildings it discusses or have a conversation about hypothetical buildings that I haven't read anything about. Get real. Your obviously just looking for things to act upset about. Maybe cut the fake performative nonsense next time. It really didn't add anything to this discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are the one who started talking about "massively stupid" and then e.g. completely rejected this source as "the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university.", even though it starts of with "Les activités scientifiques à l’Université des Frères Mentouri" and discusses an international conference organised at and by the University, and new courses given by the university in conjunction with it? Have you even looked at that article? You then dismissed the second source[45] as "extremely WP:MILL" and "trivial, run of the mill nonsense": you then focus on one line (congrats, you at least looked at the article), ignoring the other info in it, e.g. about the "ville universitiare" which had been built (39,000 beds, 28,000 classroom places (growing to 40,000). And yes, "So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"?" is mockingly rejecting sources based on false pretenses. Your participation in this AfD really has been very disappointing on all accounts. Speaking of performative nonsense, you state "Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else." but now admit that you haven't been able to see the chapter at all, which didn't stop you from commenting on it. Fram (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the references were stupid. The whole "we have traditionally kept all genuine degree-awarding universities. Plus easily enough material around to satisfy WP:GNG." is what's stupid. Necrothesp repeatedly cuts and pastes some form of "schools are inherently notable and there's ton of refences for this one that I'm not going not provide but claim exist" in every AfD for a school they vote in. Outside of that, sure I commented on the 15 page book to make a general statement about it, but general statements are just that, general. I don't have to know the exact words of the book to have an opinion about if we can use it to create a well written article. There isn't a world where synthesizing the material in the book would be a one to one, 15 page recreation of it either. Not even a 7.5 page, 5 page, or 3 page one. And it would be perfectly fine to have a two paragraph section about this in another article. I don't need to know how many times the book uses the word "is" to make that determination either. Your just looking for extremely minor things to take issue with for some reason. So I'm done with the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, of course) No matter what Necrothesp may do wrong in other AfDs, in this case they actually added a source to the article, so they did more than just claim. And you may not have said the references were stupid, but you called them nonsense and having an article based on them stupid. That you know out of hand that a 15 page article can not be the basis for a 3 page article without even seeing the original article, with some irrelevant statement about the prevalence of the word "is" in it, doesn't really give your whole reasoning here much credibility. But then again, you dismiss the book because it only has photo's, even though that isn't true at all, you dismiss newspaper sources because they include a mention of the increase in number of students, disregarding the remainder of the information, you reject a source because it isn't about the university, even though it very clearly is, you maintain for way too long the false belief that they only designed the one building, without anything to actually base this on, you confuse again and again sources added to show that the photobook about the university architecture is an important book with sources about the University itself, and so on. The problem isn't that you don't "need" to know anything, the problem is that you don't "want" to know anything that contradicts your initial impression which started this AfD. Getting an AfD wrong isn't a problem, many of my AfDs don't end in deletion: scrutinizing sources also isn't a problem, and pointing out "actual" issues with them: even pointing out why the !votes by some people should be disregarded isn't a problem, if you at least make sure that your argument to do so is correct. But continuing with all of these in the face of all evidence that you are wrong is a problem. Fram (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You really like to move the bar don't you? If I had of known this is how you would respond to me suggesting an alternative to deletion I probably would have kept the suggestion to myself. I defiantly didn't think that you would flip out over it like you have. Lesson learned. The weird thing about it is that I agreed with you about the 15 page article and that we could probably turn it into a few paragraphs. I also agreed with a couple of points you made, like that the auditorium isn't the only part of the university he built. Plus merging it to another article wasn't in my original nomination. But sure dude, I don't want to know anything that contradicts the initial impression that started the AfD. Whatever. Have fun boxing ghosts. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. It's a university, not a diploma mill. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2022 (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. But merge Troutman Sanders and Pepper Hamilton, the predecessor firms, into this article. Sandstein 16:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troutman Pepper[edit]

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

insufficient evidence for notability o this law firm. The references are mere notices of routine business events, or a report of one oft he many cases every law firm by their very nature will engage in. It is not notable to simply win one suit for wrongful conviction. A google news search shows nothing more than announcements or their own advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should note that Troutman Pepper has itself been around for a fairly short time; its two predecessor law firms are both of considerable age and are clearly notable themselves. RexSueciae (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient coverage for establishing notability, indicates lack of notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but with "Troutman Pepper" being the title of the article (so I guess merge with Troutman Sanders). I don't know how familiar y'all are with law firms, but Troutman Pepper is pretty well up there. Most of the really noteworthy events described in reliable sources will have been under the name Troutman Sanders, that is true. It should be common sense to simply continue the article with information on its post-merger operations, especially since the firm kept the Troutman name. RexSueciae (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I am changing my vote to Keep. It was pointed out to me that both Troutman Sanders and Pepper Hamilton, the predecessor firms to Troutman Pepper, have wiki articles. The article for Pepper Hamilton contains the following line about the post-merger law firm: "The combined firm has 1,100 attorneys, making it the largest purely American law firm and one of the 50 largest law firms in the world." That characteristic all but guarantees notability at *some* point. Yes, Troutman Pepper is new, and hasn't had that much coverage of its activities thus far. Even so, I can find right off the bat multiple news articles about them. You'll need a subscription to law.com but it's clear that the legal press thinks that Troutman Pepper is notable; the firm has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Consider also that Bloomberg Law, one of the premier legal research platforms, published this commentary article from several Troutman Pepper attorneys (two partners and two associates) weighing in on the activities of state attorneys general. Would they do that if Troutman Pepper were not a reputable law firm? Finally, consider AboveTheLaw (the TMZ of the legal industry, with about the same reputation, although it does tend to have its finger on the pulse of things), which has multiple articles tagged Troutman Pepper, including some promising news stories on the law firm awarding bonuses to its attorneys. tl;dr it's notable, it's got sources, and sure as anything it's gonna have more sources in the near future. RexSueciae (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the reasons well outlined by RexSueciae. Although a new firm, its predecessors began in the 1890s and combined is now 49th of the AmLaw 100 firms even more notable as a major 23 office, 1,000+ attorneys, American and world law firm. With all the stub entries not subject to deletion, this entry should be treated the same with it being left for further edits and additions. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - large firm that was created through the merger of two earlier firms, both considered notable enough to have their own articles. History just needs to be cleaned up. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all 3 firms into a single article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' all 3 firms into a single article. I apologize for not having thought of this possibility. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I ran into a similar situation when I saw a proposal to merge J. Walter Thomson and Wunderman into one article. Here's how I addressed it Wunderman Thompson. The two previous articles were rewritten into the past tense, and then the post merger history goes in the new article. It's a lot less work than trying to merge, given the amount of each predecessor's history. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote is a good idea. Went ahead and added it in, just so people can't miss the two predecessor firms. RexSueciae (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm willing to withdraw the deletion request, but others have also commented. I suggest that the procedure suggested by Timtempleton would be the best way to go forward. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Davidgoodheart. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2022 (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. Tone 12:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flat No.4B[edit]

Flat No.4B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film with no major cast members. Fails WP:NFILM with no reviews from notable publications as well as WP:N due to the paucity of other references. Has been made by a single purpose editor whose name also indicates conflict of interest Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure how this is considered well sourced. For your reference we consider only references from notable publications while evaluating notability, and a list of such publications can be found at WP:ICTFFAQ. The quality of the references already on the page are listed below
  • [46] has 1 small line which says the lead actor won a best debutant actor award. The award is not notable and as with a lot of awards in Kerala, it is quite evident that award was bought by the actor, with the organisers adding that many films were not considered as they were not submitted. Also WP:NOTINHERITED applies here.
  • [47] is 6 lines in a small press release type article from Times of India. Also to be noted here is that the banner is Kautilya Films which is also the name of the editor who created this Wikipedia article.
  • [48] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur and the movies that they were showing on a particular day. Unsure if this adds any value to the article apart from indicating that the movie was released in a run down theatre while the other biggies occupied the bigger theatres.
  • [49] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur as above
  • [50] is dead
  • [51] is a press release
  • [52] is just a listing of the movie
  • [53] is also dead
  • [54] is also dead

WP:NFILM requires 2 reviews from major publications. I was unable to find any review - from sources which are reliable or even from those considered unreliable. Also with 22 IMDB ratings [55] it is quite evident that the movie did not get a wide release which would have made it notable, or even worthy of reviewing by publications. Delete it should be. Jupitus Smart 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - first, WP:NFILM does not require reviews but rather lists the existence of film reviews as possible evidence of notability. Secondly, dead links could be retrieved using archives - it doesn't mean that sources do not exist, it requires clean up. Your claim that IMDb ratings indicate the kind of release a movie received is not based on any factual information. Also, notoability of films does not derive from how big their release was. As for the user who created the film article being named just as the production company - it still remains in the form of a speculation, which I personally do believe too but can't prove, nor does it matter as far as the film's notability is concerned anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 13:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Two reviews are actually required when it does not meet WP:GNG or if it does not meet any of the other requirements at WP:NFILM. Please indicate how this meets WP:GNG from the quality of references as discussed above. Also it is quite evident from the URL of the deadlinks that they are nothing more than picture galleries which also does not impart any notability - meaning finding archives also won't be very useful. I was not using the IMDB ratings as a metric of notability, but merely implying that the lack of coverage in reliable sources, which is a required metric for us, is a reason why nobody has watched this movie. I would also request you to indicate why notability is met, instead of harping that notability is met without any factual basis. You may choose to ignore the conflict of interest provided you can indicate notability is met, in which case cleanup would suffice, but in the absence of coverage in reliable sources this does not meet the requirements to remain. Jupitus Smart 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree. :) If the community decides to delete it, so be it. My entire perception of Wikipedia, especially in regard to which articles should stay and which shouldn't, is different, I guess. I always improve Indian cinema-based articles which are up for deletion, and I would do with this film, which I know nothing about, too, if I had more time. Shahid • Talk2me 15:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we both are inclusionists as I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umma (1960 film) and in some other discussions. I am also happy that someone is actually believing in the need for protecting Malayalam movie articles and would have been more glad if you had showed up earlier when some of the classic oldies were deleted (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gajakesariyogam among others). But this movie is not one among those which is why I have nominated this for deletion. I might also nominate the lead Riaz M. T. which is also probably made by the same syndicate. Happy editing. Jupitus Smart 01:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lacks reliable reviews for NFILM and no indication of meeting GNG. Considering the film is from 2014, its not unreasonable to expect a couple of reviews to show up online. However, offline sources may exist. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:05, 24 January 2022 (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 It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). Stifle (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Am So Proud of You[edit]

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

this is just the second part of It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A no vote to delete/merge from me. This is not 'just' the second part of "It's Such a Beautiful Day". This was an animated short film that was released theatrically in 2008 and received multiple awards and praise as a standalone piece. It was not edited into the feature film version of the longer story ("It's Such a Beautiful Day") until 2012. For that matter, the proposal to delete and merge the page for "Everything Will Be OK", the first film, is also a mistake. "Everything Will Be OK" was a standalone animated short film that was shortlisted for an Academy Award in 2007 and won the Grand Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. These were originally released as individual short films, viewed by audiences for years that way, and should remain listed here as such. Also, my apologies if I'm not using this interface correctly! Ang-pdx (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Sequels can be notable tool. The claim "The film won 27 film festival awards" is worth considering, but I note the "failed verification" tag. Right now the article passes notability based on unverified claims, so the question is, will someone claim said claims are fake or exaggerated? If not, I'd lean towards keeping this while retaining/adding copyediting templates, some of which are already present. This may be the case of a notable topic, poorly referenced - but I didn't bother doing my own BEFORE this time (hence, no vote, just comment). Ping me if more sources are found (or their lack becomes more apparent) if you'd like me to vote one way or another. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) The references in the article and results of searches do not support independent notability of this film under NFILM or GNG. The references that are available in independent, reliable sources are not significantly about this film but to the prior film. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Eggishorn, that is simply not true. This article is just in need of more work. This film screened in competition at Sundance, which is notability alone. It was later released on its own, standalone DVD:

https://www.amazon.com/Proud-You-Everything-Will-Chapter/dp/B003JOS9U2/ref=sr_1_7?crid=20MV1HB8QCRYM ...I've added an additional reference, from the filmmaker's own website. This article should stay put. Ang-pdx (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Wgullyn (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Technology[edit]

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

Virtually no coverage of this company in WP:RS and most cited works are routine business actions. The International Business Times citation is the product of a Forbes list indicating commercial success but not significance. Other references are either trade press, press releases, or articles about other companies. Searches turn up little to no mainstream news coverage of this company despite it being around for 30 years. FalconK (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that the Webby and the PGA Tour sponsorship really contribute to notability here. The company seems to have mostly kept its head down after the Webby, so the only thing to say is they won the award. These kinds of awards generally hint at the existence of notable things, but "developed a really good healthcare app for a hospital" isn't exactly notable. And they seem to have bought a APGA Tour sponsorship - again, that's really all there is to say about that. So that's how we get to this article, which is the same kind of size and milestones information that can be written about almost any company indistinctly. To back up notability, we're left with the recent change in lobbyists (a single event) and a Forbes profile of the founders. This company keeps such a low profile that, even though it has some of the things that notable companies have, it has a weak to nonexistent claim to notability on its own. FalconK (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the subject is not of high-importance and has a weak extent of notability. It barely passes the notability guidelines as a company, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Multi7001. I contributed to this article via edit requests, and as of this discussion, outside of the quarterly earnings reports in the New York Times and a few mentions in Google Scholar articles/interviews ([61], [62] and [63]), I have not been able to find additional coverage that would warrant a strong keep per WP:SIGCOV, but there is enough for a weak keep. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (refraining from voting due to a company connection): 20th largest private company in the US[1] and the biggest black-owned company in the US[2][3] Cryout (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is notable to an extent. The Insider Monkey article is not a reliable source. The Forbes page is an indicator that it may be worthy of inclusion, but generally, editorial articles with SIGCOV are more useful to establish notability. And the Black Enterprise is also a similar indicator and was not cited in the page before the AfD nom. The page should remain, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Top x of y lists are generally agreed to be insufficient to establish notability in WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm looking for (and not finding) hard evidence of notability, more than just hints that notability should exist. Of the latter, there are plenty. The former are lacking. FalconK (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "America's Largest Private Companies". Forbes. Retrieved 2022-01-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Haqqi, Ty (2021-01-19). "10 Biggest Black-Owned Companies in the US". Insider Monkey.
  3. ^ "Top 100". Black Enterprise. 2018. Retrieved 2022-01-18. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Comment= ignored (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments are very weak on policy based rationales. I considered draftifying so the style issues can be dealt with, but there is no point in doing that if it still can't get past NPROF. If someone can turn turn up some publications that get sufficient citations to stand a chance of satisfying those who argued the subject's citation rate is too low, then I would be willing to restore as a draft. If not, it would be a wasted effort. SpinningSpark 17:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Korngreen[edit]

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

Promotional piece about a non-notable subject, which was created by a paid editor. Seems to exist for the sole purpose of improving the subject's SEO on Google FASTILY 08:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would suggest Keep and Draftify. He has five papers with more than 100 citations that put's him over the line. Not the most salubrious of NPROF qualifications, not in the top tier by any means, but more than borderline. The article is puffy and promo, written in that jocular manner, your find with paid editors. I really don't like paid editors. If it is draftified, I can do the work to copyedit it. scope_creepTalk 09:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles by this paid editor need checked. I don't know why it wasn't draftified before. scope_creepTalk 09:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or delete. This is a relatively high-citation field, and I do not think the subject stands out well above the average professor in it. These are the Scopus citation metrics for his 50+ coauthors with >16 papers (cutoff determined by the lowest paper # of a coauthor who is a senior scientist or holds another pure research position beyond postdoc; limiting to just professors would raise all values significantly):
Total citations: average: 5512, median: 1969, Korngreen: 1678.
Papers: avg: 91, med: 55, K: 68.
h-index: avg: 28, med: 24, K: 24.
Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 1071, med: 200, K: 192. 2nd: avg: 307, med: 139, K: 94. 3rd: avg: 231, med: 112, K: 80. 4th: avg: 190, med: 92, K: 74. 5th: avg: 144, med: 84, K: 69.,
JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see no evidence that this researcher is any more significant than average, or there is enough independent coverage to write a wikipedia article about him. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I wrote this article and mentioned COI) Biophysics of ion channels is a small field with a relatively low citation rate. However, Korngreen's papers are cited for many years as is evident from the top cited papers.Ovedc (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Then why is he at or below the median in Scopus citations among other researchers in this field...?, JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep reasonable GS citations in high-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep (I wrote this article and mentioned COI) This article comply with the specific notability guideline for academics (WP:PROF):
    1) Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work - citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.!
    5) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources
    Thenks - Ovedc (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPROF also says either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Where are the extremely highly cited works or the substantial number with significant citations? What is your justification for When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? JoelleJay (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A known biophysicist, who specializes in brain research. A professor in a known university and the head of the Multidisciplinary Gonda Brain Research Center there since 2019. There are articles about other scientific professors like him. I don't find a reason to delete. Danny-w (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A scholar? Ping User:Piotrus, it's more of his territory. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Summoned, I appear. And I am not impressed. "Korngreen work is influencing the brain research for over a decade" - according to whom? Puffery amidsts what appears to be pretty average career. Delete might be a bit harsh, but I think drafity will be a good compromise, assuming the author is still active and is willing to go through the AfC process. And it may be a few years before the subject meets NPROF. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or at most draftify to remove the puffery an other signs of coi writing, and then reconsider. The notability is borderline. Scientists are judged by the importance of their best work, that's whats influential . There's no point looking at how many unimportant papers someone did--unimportant is unimportant. His citations are 246, 146, 111..... In many fields I would considee that notable ,but not in biomedicine . Particularly telling is that the only paper with over 200 cites is from 2000, when he was still a post-doc. That's not independent work; it was coauthored with his advisor, Bert Sakmann Comments like A professor in a known university show lack of knowledge of WP that's pretty much the definition of INDISCRIMINATE. It is a little surprising to find someone in what would appear to be a high level position with so few citations. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources establish in what way he is in fact distinguished or influential in his field or provide independent substantive coverage about him and/or his research. Number of citations should not be used to assume this. Reywas92Talk 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find JoelleJay's analysis persuasive. The citation-based argument for wiki-notability just doesn't stand up, and we don't have anything else substantial to go on. A full professorship and what appears to be a mid-level administrative position aren't what our criteria look for. In many cases, paid editing should be wasted money, and I think this is one of those times. XOR'easter (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable GS citations in high-cited field. Crocodile2020 (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No part of WP:NPROF says a hand-wavey "reasonable" number of citations is adequate for notability. It says "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Sure, Korngreen and his co-authors have a "reasonable" number of citations, but that is not necessarily "subtstantial" or "significant" in this field and is without clear evidence of how he "has made significant impact", is wholly insufficient. Reywas92Talk 14:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per JoelleJay. There might possibly be an article that could be written about this, but WP:TNT applies. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2022 (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. This is a rather split opinion, so I'll close it as a no consensus, leaning keep. Tone 10:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Sunderland[edit]

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

BLP1E applies, aside from being unwillingly viral on pornhub and being fined for it, It appears that all the sourcing is standard porn ecosystem noise, and there is not sustained evidence of notability outside a single event, Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as creator You can't be serious. In what reality, is The Independent part of the so-called "standard porn ecosystem"? In fact, the only specifically porn-related source here is AVN which was used to confirm that she signed a contract with Brazzers in 2020, even that could be replaced with Paper, which isn't a pornographic magazine. The source of the other job she had in college pre-dates the indecent exposure event. So how is this any different than Mia Khalifa (now a good article) who only had a "career" for 3 months and was only "notable" for being "number 1 on Pornhub" and performing in a hijab. Did she willingly go viral?Sunderland didn't disappear into obscurity (if that were the case, I never would have created this legitimate article and she still gets coverage to this day), she started a career. Two years after this, Rolling Stone was calling her "adult performer Kendra Sunderland" in a story about Ron Jeremy of all people. I'll never understand the goal post moving that goes on when the article is in the scope of porn. Not all of them have to write an op-ed in the New York Times. Trillfendi (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E surely doesn't apply as a successful porn actress with over 2 million Instagram followers can hardly be a "low profile individual." The Library Girl incident generated enough coverage to meet GNG, but it is not the only thing she is known for. That the Daily Beast published her article on being kicked off of IG is proof of that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plenty of coverage about the "event" in the library, not sure it's enough for an article. Nothing of substance after than, seems run of the mill porn actress. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If she really was known as Library Girl it would be sensible to create a redirect, if the article survives AfD. PamD 08:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Porn amateur busted in morals incident is a WP:DOGBITESMAN story in sex work. A minor porn award after going professional doesn't break this biography out of 1E territory. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by significant coverage in [64],

[65] and [66], notable has been established. Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two of those 3 sources, the New York Post and the Daily Star, are unreliable tabloids per WP:RSPS. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also per WP:RSP, AVN is generally reliable. So that alone settles the issue; she has significant coverage in secondary RS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure RSP accurately reflects the conclusion at [RSN which said the magazine is generally reliable, so stuff published in the site is not covered by that. Is your source printed or online? Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily surpasses GNG. BLP1E does not apply since she did not remain a low-profile individual per Pawnkingthree after the incident.[67][68] And yes, AVN ecosystem noise does count as RS.[69] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Morbidthoughts and Pawnkingthree; easily meets GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typical BLP1E. Being a non-notable porn actress following a one-off wider-than-the-porn-industry story is all that is here. Zaathras (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If she had never been heard from again after the library incident, there might be a case for BLP1E. But she became a porn actress instead, so she has not remained a "low profile individual" as BLP1E requires. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, she did remain a low-profile individual. "Low-profile" is about reality, not intent. Becoming an unremarkable, run-of-the-mill porn actress does not get her up out of 1-event territory. Zaathras (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No that's not what low-profile means. Someone who actively seeks publicity, as Sunderland does, is not low-profile regardless of whether or not she is notable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse but doing porn does not automatically make you publicity seeker. That’s ridiculous and a total distortion of how this works. Being outed involuntarily cannot create an assumption that you must get a scarlet letter just because you work in porn. If that hadn’t of happened we wouldn’t have this article at all as she is otherwise not notable and no more attention seeking than any other porn performer. Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Acting in Hollywood makes you high-profile but acting in pornographic movies means you've been outed? One is a publicity seeker if they're doing high-profile high-visibility work, doing interviews on that work, attending promotional events as the 'line-up' in the event, etc... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject lacks sustain reliable source coverage over a significant time. She does not pass notability guidelines over the long term, and the coverage of the one event is not in and of itself enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where is independent coverage outside BLP1E. This is typical BLP1E fare. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have already given examples of articles that came before or years after her so-called claim to fame, which contribute to significant / sustained coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment surprised this was still open; I've looked at the new info above, still nothing notable. One "incident" then just blended into the woodwork in the porn industry. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such blending is called a career. Trillfendi (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ProcrastinatingReader. Seems to meet the necessary bars. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' utterly trivial. The notability is one event. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pawnkingthree Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC per review of available sources. WP:BLP1E that does rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two pages in the peer reviewed Feminist Media Studies paper here. Besides the library coverage ([70], [71], [72], [73]) There's an assortment of media interest over the past 7 years, she has moved past the library video: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. Pikavoom Talk 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets look at this shall we. The first lot of sources all relate to the library incident and later coverage is in the context of amateur porn or caming making the point that this is flash in the pan 1E territory without enduring independent coverage. So lets look at the evidence of enduring coverage cited; which is hardly making a case. Newsweek interview about caming, mens health? Sensational interview and quotes about dirty talk, indian express, reprint w/o a byline from a Daily Mail article, pornstar makeup FFS and tabloids like Daily Star & NY Post. None of this is an arguable case that there is enduring coverage so proving the 1E case. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You left out the part where the Feminist Studies journal article was published 2 years after the incident in your mistaken interpretation of BLP1E. Enduring independent coverage. You also have a mistaken understanding of what secondary vs. primary means in dismissing the Newsweek article as an interview. Reporters are allowed to interview people to write a story. This wasn't a transcript of a q&a here. Arguing that it's the same is dishonest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sufficient sources meet WP:GNG. Definitely not WP:BLP1E as she has coverage for more than the single event. Reliable sources exist. Fieari (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:GNG, fn3, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works, so the initial independent news coverage about the library incident (i.e. not churnalism, and not information directly from her, e.g. as in tabloid-style clickbait publications such as post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK) does not contribute much to notability. And per reliable sources, she was a WP:VICTIM because her video was uploaded to multiple websites without her consent, so the article should exist only if consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, [she] had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The available sources do not show the event is "well-documented" or "historic", and her inclusion in two and a half paragraphs at the beginning of a Feminist Media Studies article is not enough to support "historic significance", while later tabloid-style promotional coverage helps emphasize the lack of historic significance. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The video was uploaded by a stranger without consent yet she consented to start a career in pornography after that. If she was a random person, it just would not be the same story. I mean, she still calls herself KSLibraryGirl. Trillfendi (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:ENTERTAINER notability also does not appear supported - the criteria that may have applied, i.e. the "cult" following, has been deprecated. Feminist Media Studies comments, "the case of Kendra Sunderland is also recognizable as an increasingly ordinary narrative about working on the edges of mainstream cultural industries," so there does not appear to be objective support for unique or innovative contributions. This article reminds me of a concept I attribute to DGG, which is essentially when insufficient independent and reliable support for notability exists, we are typically left with promotional content, and based on the type and quality of the sources, this appears to apply here. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's something else I often say, that in some forms of entertainment, there can be very little difference between promotional and non-promotional content. The manner of ever good descriptive writing is not always distinguishable. If we completely eliminated promotional content in some subfields of entertainment we'd have no articles on current performers. I've withdrawn my delete--I'm undecided. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 January 2022 (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 and thank you Stifle for adding a new word to my vocabulary. SpinningSpark 17:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Dwyer (baseball)[edit]

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

non-notable, non-female non-minority ([82]) former baseball player who played in one MLB game with no birthday, no deathday, no batting stance and no throwing stance. The only indicator of notability I could find was an entry in The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball: Biographies of 1,084 Players, Owners, Managers and Umpires, which is not enough to establish notability on its own. Because he is mentioned as having a minor-league career in The Rank and File, I searched Newspapers.com for additional information, but nothing came up. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If one routine source and one non-routine source are enough to keep an article... Therapyisgood (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, how is being a "non-female non-minority" relevant? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agreed, there were few, if any, minority, female baseball players in pro-ball in the 19th Century. Non issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Penale52 and poor nomination rationale. Wizardman 17:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable Major League Baseball player. Spanneraol (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1882 Cleveland Blues season per WP:PRESERVE, but also per failing WP:GNG. Two articles is not enough when his career was so incredible short and had no impact on anything. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if one WP:ROUTINE article and one source were enough to keep an article, Lewis (baseball) would have been kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination), which was merged (former FA). Still fails WP:GNG. Someone please tell me how they are distinguishable. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is for "Lewis", we didn't even know his name. We know the given name of Dwyer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. As can be seen in the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski, NSPORT/NBASE make it very clear that a topic that meets a SNG but doesn't have enough coverage is non-notable. Alvaldi (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On your Vainowski point, (1) that is not NBASE, and (2) several editors have agreed that was the incorrect closure and I plan on bringing it to DRV soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vainowski was indeed NGRIDIRON which is, like NBASE, part of NSPORTS. So the point still stands, it is very clear that a topic that meets a SNG but doesn't have enough coverage is non-notable. The verdic in the Vainowski AfD was spot on in that regard. Alvaldi (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Penale52's sources, and I agree with Wizardman that nom provided a poor deletion rationale. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, (1) very poor deletion rationale (non-female non-minority? Really? So we're going to base notability on gender/skin color now?) (2) per Penale52's sources and (3) per passing of NBASE. And while topics ultimately have to meet GNG according to NSPORT, I'm a bit more "generous" on older (especially very old topics such as this one) topics as coverage can be very hard to dig up. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is time for us to abandon the absurd conceit that someone can become notable for one game. Actors need two significant roles in major productions for notability. We should have the same standard at least for sportspeople, and delte articles on people who only played one game at the top level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree that the non-female/non-minority garbage was bewildering, but Penale52's sources don't cut it. The first is routine sports coverage that by longstanding consensus does not contribute towards notability, and the second is effectively an interview of the subject, which explicitly does not count towards notability. As far as this being an older subject, there is no guideline or policy which waives the requirements of WP:V due to the age of the subject. The only possible policy-based answer to "It's hard to find reliable sources for a subject because it was a long time ago" is "Then an article on the subject cannot be sustained." Ravenswing 15:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Also per NBASE. Under the rationale by the nominator, a great many 19th century baseball players would be deleted (white, male, unknown batting and throwing information, lack of contemporary coverage unearthed from 130+ years ago). Neonblak talk - 15:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, yes. There are likely a number of sub-stubs on 19th century baseball players with a near-to-complete lack of information, sourced or otherwise, and applying the GNG to those articles (as NSPORTS criteria agree is applicable) would result in their deletion or redirection to appropriate list articles. This is a feature, not a bug. Ravenswing 03:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I do understand your (and others') rationale, if the deletion of possibly 100s (?) of articles is deemed necessary, this seems like a wholly inefficient method of rectifying a largely static issue. Neonblak talk - 17:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1882 Cleveland Blues season as an obvious ATD. There are no suitable in depth sources. 1882 is within the era where sources should be able to be found if they exist. The argument that he meets NBASE by itself is not sufficient to keep the article - we must be able to find more than that. As is, we have a one sentence stub with little or no chance of significant improvement any time soon. If sources are found the redirect can be removed and a proper article created. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per NBASE. Rlendog (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I really want to vote "keep" here, but I'm unable to find anything beyond what's already reported here. The excerpt from the Nemec book is really a summary of the game and I can't call it in-depth coverage of Dwyer. I could maybe be persuaded that the first item cited by Penale is at the outer edge of SIGCOV but the second item is a pure Q&A and is from the same newspaper --- either way, that's only one source (the Free Press) and GNG asks us for SIGCOV in "multiple" reliable sources. Also, the article's been around for 12 years so it's hard to say that there hasn't been adequate time to search for SIGCOV. The only other option would be an "IAR" vote, and I might go there if I had better evidence of an extensive career. In this case, I can't bring myself to go there. Redirecting or merging to 1882 Cleveland Blues season would definitely be better than deleting. As for the nominating rationale, I can't find any sources referring to Dwyer's race/ethnicity and suggest that piece is unnecessary and should be omitted from future noms. Cbl62 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the Nemec excerpt and it does detail to some degree his minor league career, so it could be argued that it is at the outer, outer edge of SIGCOV, and it does come from a highly respected authority in David Nemec. Count me as neutral. Cbl62 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the season page per WP:PAGEDECIDE. That we can verify that during this team's season, a player played one bad game, got hounded by the press, and quit, is exactly the kind of interesting information that should be in the article about the season. There's little reason to put it on a separate page though. Levivich 04:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, I don't see any problems in keeping this as a separate article. Deleting "non-notable, non-female non-minority" is not the way to solve biases, the focus should instead be on writing new articles about women, minorities, etc. Also, appears to pass NBASE. NemesisAT (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantive coverage about this person. Just a mere database entry for a single appearance is obscenely insufficient for notability. NBASE is a presumption of notability, but that is apparently not upheld with actual sources. Why would there be for a single appearance in 1882??? The professionalism and coverage of baseball today that would make this guess true (which includes working one's way up through university and minor league play) does not apply then. Reywas92Talk 14:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Since there's speculation of a longer career in Iowa and Colorado, I'm willing to give folks some time to find sourcing and expand this into a viable article, otherwise it can be speedily deleted after 6 months. –dlthewave ☎ 17:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with others that the coverage found of him is routine and/or not secondary/independent, and therefore does not meet GNG. As NSPORT requires GNG be met, arguments that NBASE suffices are incorrect. If someone wants to find sources for him he can be listed at the baseball project. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets NBASE as a major league player. I think Penale52 has discovered enough sources to meet GNG as well. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Editorofthewiki Which independent secondary sources do you think bring him to GNG? The three I looked at were the brief write-up in an encyclopedia that gives every "19th c. player, major owner, manager, league official, and regular umpire" a biography; a few lines in a routine game report; and a shallow interview (not usable for notability as it's primary and non-independent). JoelleJay (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is sufficient. Even if every 19th century player got a write-up in the book, that does not discount it as a source. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And that still doesn't make it the multiple pieces of SIGCOV required by GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1882 Cleveland Blues season. Even with the sources from Penale52, there isn't enough significant coverage for there to be an encyclopedic article on this person. His seasonal stats from the only season he played are the only substantial facts we know about him, and those can be sufficiently covered in the season article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBASE. I do not accept the claim that passing a subject notability guideline is not sufficient, otherwise all those guidelines would be otiose. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stifle, he doesn't actually pass a subject notability guideline. NSPORT is the SNG, and it says GNG is necessary to merit an article and that all subguidelines on its page merely predict which subjects might meet GNG (see the 1st and 3rd sentences in the lead; the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th sentences in the Applicable policies section; the 1st and 2nd sentences of SPORTCRIT; and FAQs #1, 2, and 5). NSPORT isn't supposed to be used as an alternative conduit to notability, but rather as a collection of rules-of-thumb that focuses editors on the athletes most likely to have received SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with all of the reasons mentioned above to keep. Why would being a female or minority give the same level of exposure priority over one of any other sex or race. Equality right?WikiGuruWanaB (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the season page unless more information about them can be added. Gusfriend (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions, while in the majority, make weak (or no) arguments: there is broad community consensus that all article topics must have substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources (WP:GNG). Only one "keep" opinion even cites a source, and it is not even really about this topic, but about a subtopic ("exchange stations"). Apart from that, nobody else has found any coverage approaching the requirements of WP:GNG. Sandstein 18:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stations with no exit[edit]

Stations with no exit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this list topic is in any way notable as a group. Fram (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting topic. Given time I'm sure sources could be found to support the entries in this list. NemesisAT (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not really convincing... Individual entries may have sources, but you need sources that addess the topic as a group. Fram (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Currently the article doesn't cite any sources at all, whether for the individual stations or as a group. If the article is kept it should probably be renamed to something like Railway stations without public access to clarify what these are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I'm sure sources can be found!" without identifying any such sources is worthless and a waste of everyone's time. I am unconvinced this is encyclopedic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per reasons for original PROD (I was going to PROD this article, but Fram beat me to it by a few seconds) and nom. The fact that it is an "interesting topic" is not a valid policy reason to keep this article. Singularity42 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Singularity42: You used "del" in the edit summary, and your text indicates you are arguing for deletion, but you wrote "Keep" as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm Because I'm half-asleep and wrote "Keep" instead of "Delete". Fixed now. Singularity42 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article overlaps in scope with Special-purpose railway stations in the United Kingdom, for which see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special purpose UK railway stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support a merge with the above article as an alternative to deletion provided the information contained in this one is retained. NemesisAT (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An issue to be resolved in this case is that while Special-purpose railway stations in the United Kingdom is neatly sized and based on the UK, the current article is based on the World; and would require the combined article to become Special purpose UK railway stations; with that article's table potentially becoming unwieldy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not require inclusion just because it is interesting. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is my first article so there are some eye sores around, but there is no comprehensive list of railways stations with no available public entrance (either on Wikipedia or elsewhere). I am fine editing the name for ease of understanding mind. Essexman03 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Essexman03, I am concerned that this reasoning - while in good faith - is contrary to Wikipedia's policy that Wikipedia is not a webhost. If no reliable, secondary sources have noted this topic as notable elsewhere, then it is not a topic for inclusion as a Wikipedia article yet. Singularity42 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note: I've just reverted a controversial move by page creator Essexman03 to Railway stations without public access as that is not a BOLD move to make while the article is under an active AfD, and while not prohibited, it is disruptive, see WP:AFDEQ. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: @Djm-leighpark Apologies for the name change edit; I was not aware that no major changes could be made to alleviate the situation. Mea culpa. Essexman03 (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One article about such stations in Europe is at Gardner, Nicky; Kries, Susanne (18 September 2020). "Changing trains". Hidden Europe: Letter from Europe. No. 2020/26. Nempnet (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are not reliable secondary sources about this topic in existence, as admitted by the article creator, that is a clear reason to delete this article. Wikipedia lists should not be based on original research or original synthesis of sources to create a new topic that has not been covered reliably in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The (Gardner & Kries, 2020) source introduced by Nempnet seems to give implications for alternate nomenclature such as: exchange-only stations. That leads on to private stations (Such at MGWR's Clonhugh for George Forbes, 7th Earl of Granard (Rowledge, 1995, p.164)) and viewing-only stations perhaps more common on tourist/heritage railways; all and perhaps more being encompassed by special purpose stations. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Djm-leighpark raises a good point here. If this article is kept, a name change is definitely in order. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a notable topic. Easy enough to source. Rename to List of stations with limited access or something similar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another Necrothesp vote without any evidence to back it up, a rather bad habit that. Fram (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're saying that the lack of exits from these stations is not sourced? I think you'll find it is quite clearly sourced. But, in my opinion, a really bad habit is to continually attack anyone who disagrees with you. AfD is about opinion, not bureaucracy. I have expressed mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's obviously not what I am saying, but please keep trying. Or read the AfD nomination instead. And no, AfD is not about opinion: opinion which isn't supported by facts is commonly disregarded by closers and not taken into account when deciding upon consensus. I only attack opinions from people who should know better but continue with the same empty statements. Fram (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia would be a much happier place if you didn't attack anyone's opinion. Would it really be that difficult to just let editors post at AfD without lambasting everyone who disagrees with your views? Come on, it's not that hard. Try it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wouldn't it be a much better place if you didn't equate yourself with "everyone"? Fram (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't just keep an article solely based on "seems like a notable topic". Link us a few sources covering the topic in detail and maybe then you will persuade people. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We can if there is a consensus to do so and/or folks effectively argue why it improves the encyclopedia, per WP:IGNOREALLRULES. NemesisAT (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You would vote keep on anything. You vote keep 95.5% of the time [83], often failing to link to any sources to justify such votes, and you're doing it again here. You argument is nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. The keep voters here have consistently failed to explain why this article meets guidelines for list notability. WP:IIAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you vote keep only 11% of the time. Neither statistic is relevant here. NemesisAT (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just checked and there are actually enough electrons in the universe now that we can keep an article that seems like a notable topic. WP:NOTPAPER. Maybe there isn't a cumulative list out there but surely individual stations with "No Exit"[84] have to have coverage. Essexman03 with his first page made the same foolish mistake that I did, which is to assume that putting an article into mainspace was an invitation to veteran editors to help improve it. But instead, the welcoming committee here AfD'd his first article after less than a fortnight. BBQboffin (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy - Interesting topic, but that alone isn't enough for an article. Fails WP:NLIST. I was on the fence, but the complete failure of any of the keep !votes to put forward viable policy-based arguments (except insofar as IAR can support any combination of words) is what convinced me. Not opposed to userfication if Essexman thinks there's sourcing out there and wants more time to bring it together. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think name change and expansion is appropriate as well and is probably better discussed on the talk page. But of research interest here goes:
Andrews, Kate. "The most remote railway stations in the world". Rail Europe.
Alexander, Colin; Siton, Alon (2018), The Stephenson Railway Legacy, Amberley Publishing Limited, ISBN 9781445676555, . The 1846 York & Newcastle Railway station at Richmond in North Yorkshire had no road access... Djflem (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support this as an alternative to deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 01:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dalytra[edit]

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

I'm doubting the validity of this genus. No refs, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up article and cats and yahoo search and some archive.org. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The reason you are finding so few references is because most online sources erroneously place these species in the genus Alcmena, which is a permanently invalid junior homonym (see [85] for proof). For one glaring example, see [86]. Just because some online sources are erroneous does not oblige Wikipedia to propagate these errors. Dalytra does definitively exist - see the reference linked in the article itself, and also [87], [88] - and is the oldest available name for the permanently unavailable Alcmena. Dyanega (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyanega: are there three confusing taxon here? GBIF has:
fiveby(zero) 20:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, Alcmena Stål, 1859 (Homonym) in infobox i think explains it. fiveby(zero) 21:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alcmena Stål, 1859 should not be accepted by anyone; that is an error, since Koch's name is available and has seniority. The circumstances allowing a junior primary homonym to be adopted as valid do not apply here, if only because Art. 23.9.1.2 could not possibly be satisfied. Dyanega (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC) (I should note that both GBIF and BioLib are not trustworthy sources, as both are quite often wrong; GBIF especially so, and a distressingly large number of editors seem to give it entirely undeserved, uncritical acceptance). Dyanega (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koyilandy Jumu'ah Mosque[edit]

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

This article is a weird mess, only referenced to a single source, and all I could find about the mosque when I did a WP:BEFORE was a bunch of links to other Wiki sites that were copies of this article. So from what I can tell the subject of the article fails the notability guidelines. Adamant1 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2022 (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 Great Britain at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Alpine skiing. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone. Since there's a plausible redirect target and the name is a plausible search term, redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Hutcheon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage, either in the article or identifiable through a search. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of notability and citation. This is a stub with only one source...that the human being exists. -Markeer 03:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The 1976 Olympics would have been covered in paper newspapers and magazines at the time, which are unlikely to be searchable online via google. I have no access to a public library at this time (and particularly not a british one) where I could do a proper search. Could someone check in my stead? Fieari (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply are you suggesting that because the 1976 Olympics itself is notable, then therefore this one participant is? Or are you suggesting that editors should research news coverage from the time to find out if this individual is notable in said coverage? Because if it's the latter...then this is a Delete until that research bears fruit, not a reason to keep this article in hope such research happens. -Markeer 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the latter. I would prefer not to delete potentially notable things without verifying that they lack notability. The only issue for me is that I currently physically lack access to the place where I could check if this person is notable or not. If a library search shows that no contemporary articles were written about her, then yes, of course delete, I am in no way suggesting inheritability of notability. If you pushed me for a !vote though... I don't think it's harmful to wait until it can be checked. I see no reason to prefer deletion over keeping in unknown situations. If we know someone to be non-notable, delete. If we know someone to be notable, keep. But if we don't know either way, as in this case... I'd rather commit error to keep than error to delete. Fieari (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fieari: If "we don't know either way", that means that we've been unable to establish notability. The article currently consists of a sparse 15 words ("Hazel Hutcheon ... is a British alpine skier. She competed in two events at the 1976 Winter Olympics."). If SIGCOV is later discovered, the article can be re-created and nothing of any real substance has been lost. Cbl62 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more coming from the perspective that overcoming systemic WP:BIAS is valuable for the encyclopedia. Articles that require offline sources... that is to say, smaller yet still notable events/people prior to the 90s... are systemically biased against on wikipedia, because it takes more work to correct. A stub can encourage research. Lack of a stub can fall into a memory hole to be forgotten forever. Fieari (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A red link can also encourage research, and I believe I read a study that suggested that it was more effective at doing so than a stub. Regardless, WP:MUSTBESOURCES applies, and any !vote solely on that basis should be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com does include some English newspapers, and all I find are passing mentions during the Olympics. See, e.g., here ("Hazel Hutcheon was eliminated in the first round ...") and here ("Hazel Hutcheon, 16 in August, is the youngest of a notably young group, and indeed the youngest on the team."). This does not rise to the level of depth required by WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's good enough for me. Removing bold from my tentative keep from before, changing to Delete. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source consists of two mentions of her in the captions of photos, and a mention that she held a Women's Ski title - it doesn't constitute significant coverage. The second also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, with the only reference to her being the line "Similarly Hazel Hutcheon of Dundee was the fastest British Girl." BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to List of British alpine skiers, or delete. Not finding any significant coverage; British Newspaper Archive reveals nothing more than what has been found by others already – all mentions of her are merely name-drops or passing mentions in routine sports reporting of the day. There is no valid ATD here since no suitable merge/redirect target (e.g. List of British alpine skiers) exists; she is only name-dropped in existing articles (which were obviously not the only events she ever competed in, and probably not what she's most known for – presumably that would be her British title) and significant information, in this case regarding her British combined title, cannot be added without it being undue – an appropriate list would resolve this. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That list now exists. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!vote amended. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough here to satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-medaling Olympians are not considered default notable and the sources we have in the article and that have been identified in this discussion are no where near meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. As fun as it was to go digging to find information on her, the resources available online do not support keeping this article. Seems a shame as I suspect there are hard copies of stories about her that we simply cannot access. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. National champion in her event. Sources look okay to me. Deb (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deb: Consensus has long established that GNG has to be met when the (often very weak) presumption of notability offered by NSPORTS is challenged. As such, please can you clarify exactly what significant coverage you are seeing in these sources that would meet GNG? Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Wjemather:Are you disputing that she was national champion? Deb (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Deb: No (btw, it was me who added that information to the article), I am disputing that there is significant coverage in the sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Wjemather: She fulfils the criteria for an assumption of notability as defined in Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Athletics/track_&_field_and_long-distance_running. Deb (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Deb: Aside from being a skier, not a track and field athlete... such a claim would be sufficient if you were disputing a speedy or proposed deletion but at AFD, any NSPORTS-based presumption (not assumption) of notability must be validated by demonstrating that significant coverage exists and GNG is met. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Wjemather: Sorry about those typos, but, regardless of the sport, your statement is incorrect. I'm not sure where your zeal for deleting national sporting champions comes from, but that's my position. The claim is sufficient because it is backed by reliable sources. There don't need to be hordes of articles and books. Deb (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • See WP:NSPORT/FAQ. Additionally, countless discussions at N, NSPORT and VP, and AFDs, indicate that your position is at odds with community consensus. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Deb Along with the FAQs, the first sentence of NSPORT situates it as a predictor of GNG, the Applicable policies and guidelines section reiterates the GNG requirement, and SPORTCRIT also requires SIGCOV in multiple RS. That NSPORT is subordinate to GNG was the intent of NSPORT from the start, and was reaffirmed in a large RfC in 2017 as well as in hundreds of AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As a national champion, she meets the notability criteria. Why would you want to delete an article about a person whose notability has been verified by reliable sources? Deb (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This is a fallacy. The RS we have only verify her achievements, which does not equate to verifying notability; significant coverage (of the subject) in secondary reliable sources is required to verify notability, but we don't appear to have any. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This is a fallacy. There is a presumption of notability for national champions and the fact that she is one is verifiable. Deb (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Actually, no, there is no presumption of notability for national champions in skiing. Cbl62 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 04:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory McDermott[edit]

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

As a non-medalling Olympian, he fails WP:NOLYMPICS, and also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in the article and none could be identified in a WP:BEFORE search. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Horse Magazine entry is not significant coverage, and while the Equestrian Life entry might be, it is only a single example when we require WP:THREE, and the fact that it focuses on McDermott's son, rather than McDermott, suggests that might not constitute significant coverage of McDermott. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is an essay. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is sufficient here to support GNG and allow some depth to be added to much more than a stub, including at least one detailed bio. Aoziwe (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a Google Search. Could you provide specific examples? BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It is a trimmed search to make it easy for people to find specifically relevant sources. There is this bio at third top (on my results), for example. There is sufficient in the results to provide some depth as to the subject's history and career over a number of decades. See WP:NEXIST Aoziwe (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a few short mentions in extremely niche publications is not enough to show notability. We decided that non-medaling Olympians are not notable. I am just not convinced that niche equstrian pulications are enough. Maybe the 2nd soruce, but the first source is also too short to count as passing the in depth coverage of GNG, so even if we accept niche equestrian publications as enough, we only have at best one GNG meeting source, and GNG requires multiple sources that are in depth and meet all its other prongs, so the one truly in-depth source is not enough to pass GNG so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since yesterday, the article has been expanded by the excellent work by Hack. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The expanded article now passes the GNG bar. The coverage from The Canbera Times and the two-part profile in The Horse Magazine have the kind of depth that is needed. And thanks to User:Hack for the improvements. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No outstanding issues. Deb (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ardan International[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, only coverage available seems to be routine announcements of acquisitions and product launches. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are citations giving evidence that this corporation exists, but not that there has been any reason for significant coverage in secondary sources. -Markeer 03:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rationale at WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to RL360°: The article text and references describe the company's senior personnel and sale, topics which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing evidence of notability. Acquisition of this company is summarised at RL360°#Subsidiaries, so a redirect is an option. AllyD (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 04:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Novak[edit]

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

Questionable notability per WP:NBIO/WP:GNG/WP:NBASKET with respect to depth of coverage and secondary sourcing. Poorly-sourced; strongest secondary sources supporting the subject may generally conflict with the principle of WP:AUD. Headphase (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I know there's no such thing as an auto-keep, but this nomination makes no sense. He's coaching at the Division I level and has a history of success on lower levels, and games played under an interim title count just as much as they would if he gets hired permanently. Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The league and team might be notable but notability is not inherited. Inclusion for athletes and coaches on Wikipedia is not merit based, rather it is based on them being covered significantly by indepth articles. The nomination questions his notability due to lack of coverage and as such makes sense since there doesn't seem to be alot of significant articles written on Novak. While Rikster2 has found three indepth sources, two of them are by the same author and all three are from a timespan of three weeks and brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability per WP:SUSTAINED. Alvaldi (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Alvaldi mentioned, notability is not inherited; the suitability of a subject earning a standalone article is not founded on that subject's future prospects. That is why existing coverage is important; until such a time as a subject's independent notability is clearly established by significant & targeted coverage, it may make more sense to merge the information into a larger article (in this case, the team's article). Headphase (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sigh 😒...then why did you nominate it for deletion?! If you think it works as a redirect, try to do so yourself and if it doesn't stick, then bring it to AfD. I'm getting real sick of these quixotic deletion nominations where deletion will not be the end result, the nom still takes it right to AfD, and redirects and PRODs aren't ever considered. And if he gets a permanent contract and/or wins the title, this nom is going to look silly and downright embarrassing in retrospect; I guarantee you if the subject was an interim FBS football coach in September or men's basketball coach in early December, you'd be TROUTed and speedy closed, because an interim college head coach is still a head coach. Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whether Novak gets a permanent contract or wins a championship in the future is irrelevant to this AfD. He either has the significant coverage to pass GNG today or he doesn't and thus is not notable enough to warrant an article. Alvaldi (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, round 2: 1 and 2. BTW, GNG only requires “multiple” significant sources. Rikster2 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - SEC women's head coach meets GNG and has sources. Not sure why this was even nominated. Jhn31 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the three articles that have been found, two are from the same author/newspaper and as such count as single source for the purposes of establishing notability. All three are from a timespan of three weeks, i.e. a brief bursts of news coverage related to his hiring. There is no inherited notability gained for coaching a certain team or in a certain league and !votes that state that the subject should be kept due to that contradict policy. NSPORTS specifically states that athletes and coaches have to pass WP:GNG with significant coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. I tried looking for other sources, including on newspapers.com, but did not find anything of substance. Two articles in a span of three weeks are not enough in my opinion. I'm willing to reconsider if more sources are found. Alvaldi (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you done any independent research yourself for sources? I dug those out in 5 minutes from a Google search. If you are going to repeatedly insert yourself into this debate then I think you also need to give looking for sources an honest go before proclaiming someone doesn’t meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rikster2: As I mentioned in my above comment, I did look for sources. To clarify, I tried a few Google searches with some variations (name + different schools etc.) and went through a few pages. I also did a search Newspapers.com where I also tried few variations and different time periods. The best I found were the same sources your search turned up. I am more than willing to change my !vote if others have better luck in finding significant sources from perhaps earlier in his career. Alvaldi (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a couple more references above. Including a lengthy interview from the Minneapolis Star when he was at Bethel. The GNG requirement isn't 30 sources it is "multiple sources." I have now cited 4 different (if you combine the 2 Clarion Ledger as one source). Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on the sources. GNG isn't a massive hurdle to overcome, three good sources are usually enough. He now has multiple significant sources from over at least 4 year period. I will change my !vote to Keep. I also added the sources to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All bar one of the previous Mississippi State Bulldogs women's basketball head coaches have pages for them (see template on page). Plus there seem to be a number of articles about him which are easily found on the internet. Perhaps worth adding additional information about win/loss whilst assistant at earlier places and more on what he did at Bethel. Gusfriend (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG as the subject of articles like this. NemesisAT (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG at this point. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep – I question the objectors' WP:BEFORE diligence. It took me less than 10 minutes to find a number of third party, significant, reliable sources, only to then see a couple editors above already linked them in support of keeping this article. SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lsw2472 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 04:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Christina Calayca[edit]

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

I am not sure what our current standards are, but there is almost no coverage since 2009, therefore possibly not of continuing encyclopedic interest. The article emphasizes details that would seem to be of relevance only in the immediate period, or to those actively engaged in the search for her. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominator's claim is false. There are in fact coverage from 2018, 2021, and 2022, which are already in the article. The article is supported by lots of WP:RS and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes the article is well sourced and the article is worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In defence of the article, ten of the sources are from after 2009 (five of them from 2021-2022) and there are three more from active online databases managed by provincial and national Canadian police forces as well as one of their affiliates, suggesting a persistent interest in the case. While media attention has tapered off since 2009, contemporary sources note that media attention in the first two years of the investigation was significant and far-reaching across Canada's largest province, and more recent sources evidence there is persistent public interest in the case. That the initial search is tied with a 2005 search for the longest ever performed by Canada's largest provincial police force is also evidence of its notability. I believe the details included are useful for putting the investigation and theories into context, though a few were included because they are part of the narrative surrounding the case or because they are unusual. I agree that extraneous details should be pared down where they appear, but I do not believe any of them would be considered interesting to only those involved in the investigation. DinoBenn (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can tell some of the references in the article have retrieval dates of 2018, 2021, and 2022, but were still written around the time of the person's original disappearance. Except with the caveat of a podcast from a year ago and maybe a blog post if I'm getting the dates correct (and I assume I am), but neither of these is usable for notability. So what the first voter said about this having continued coverage is wrong. At least in any way that matters. Otherwise, I'll change my vote if they can point out which references are from the last couple of years outside of the two I've mentioned. In the meantime references from the Canadian police and their affiliates don't work for notability even if they are current, anymore then a podcast or blog post does. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The recent sources I referred to are episodes of the podcasts The True Crime Files and Cold Case Detective from 2021, which are reasonably popular and mostly included due to the speculation present on their programs; an article from the popular missing persons blog Stories of the Unsolved from January 2022; an episode of the The Next Call podcast, which was published by Canada's national news broadcaster in 2021 and hosted by a prolific CBC crime reporter; and an article from the Elliot Lake Today news service from September 2021. The latter two were both published by reputable news sources and the former three, being independent media, indicate continued public interest in the case 14 years on. DinoBenn (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you said there refutes what I said. In the meantime the fact that you say the podcasts are based on speculation just furthers my point that they don't work for notability since podcasts about cold cases are usually 99% based on unsubstantiated speculations and are therefore unreliable sources. It might as well be a reference to the National Enquirer at that point. The one that was published by Canada's national news broadcaster is no different, it's still based completely on conjecture. "On the CBC true crime podcast The Next Call, host David Ridgen speculated that Denis Léveillé, a suspect in the unsolved 1996 disappearance of Melanie Ethier with a history of sexually abusing teenage girls, may have been responsible for other missing person cases in Ontario." Does a podcast host speculating that some rando "may have" been responsible for the disappearance sound like a reliable source for a biographical article to you? Because to me it doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that those sources are worthy of inclusion because they are "based on" speculation, but that they offer speculation. It would do a disservice to the article not to include speculation from independent media, as these sources address angles which investigators have not brought up because they are potentially embarrassing to police (ex. the starlight tours connection) or baseless (ex. the arranged marriage rumour), and a reader who does their own research on the topic may be misled by online message board threads into thinking said theories have more or less value than they warrant. As to the point about unreliable sources, the article does not derive details about the disappearance from these podcasts except for corroboration purposes. I will also note again that with regards to The Next Call, David Ridgen is an award-winning crime journalist so his conjecture is noteworthy, though I will admit that the context surrounding why Léveillé is more than just "some rando" has been omitted for the sake of brevity. The notion that these sources are "usually 99% based on unsubstantiated speculations" is itself unsubstantiated, and Wikipedia policy does not state that independent podcasts should not be used as sources. As for whether my reply addresses your original concerns, I will point out that your original case in favour of deletion mentions that the more recent sources I mentioned were actually contemporary sources, while my reply demonstrated they are in fact from 2021-2022. I understand your skepticism about the validity of sources you have not had a chance to vet personally, but please respect that I am engaging with your criticism and not resorting to bad faith tactics to undermine it. DinoBenn (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing sources that can be included in an article to cite something with ones that can be used for showing notability in an AfD discussion. They are different things. There's a higher bar when it comes to using a source to show notability then there is for citing a piece of information in an article. Especially with BLP articles and the source is making un-substantiated legal accusations about people. Also, notability isn't inherited. Just because David Ridgen is a notable crime journalist doesn't mean everything he writes about also automatically becomes notable just because he did a piece on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confused. The original criticism was that there was only one or two recent sources on the subject, when in fact there are five from just this past year. Your criticism was that those five were not from the past year, and I pointed out that they were. Your reply was that they are not reliable sources for details on the case, to which I argued that they corroborate details offered by more credible sources and their value is in evidencing continued public interest in the case and the forms that takes. With regards to your latest points: Ridgen's speculation is not notable because an accredited journalist suggested it, but because an accredited journalist suggested a likely suspect behind an unsolved disappearance in a remote Northern Ontario community, which said journalist had done extensive research on, might be responsible for an unsolved disappearance in another remote Northern Ontario community given the prolific amount of girls and young women Léveillé assaulted and was convicted of assaulting in life. If anything, this is an indication that more details from the podcast should be included in the article for context, and that my failure was in believing it was sufficient to link to an article where the suspect is discussed in greater depth. As to the other sources, your personal stance on whether they warrant discussion in this forum is noted, but given that the original criticism is that the case is no longer being discussed the fact that multiple sources have commented on the case independent of one another in recent years suggests otherwise. DinoBenn (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never disputing that multiple sources have commented on the case in recent years. Nor did I say the case was no longer being discussed. I literally said it was recently talked about in a blog post and podcast. But what sources exist from the last couple of years that aren't blogs, speculative podcasts, or the police? Btw, it also can't be the interviews done with her family members. I want something recent that isn't primary and (or) mostly full of unsubstantiated speculation and save the long, mostly off topic diatribes this time. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not spend any more time correcting the record. The Elliot Lake Today article, which I am linking here for your convenience, matches all the qualifications you have outlined. DinoBenn (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reference from a guy who's recent work includes a story about an encounter he had with ghosts. Real reliable source there lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you are arguing in bad faith at this point, but for the sake of anyone reading this thread it should be noted that the linked news article relays factual information about the search & rescue process and how it relates to Calayca's case, including segments of interviews with SAR professionals familiar with the case. Supernatural phenomena do not come up in the article, so whether or not the author of the article believes in ghosts is about as relevant as whether or not they believe in God, Bigfoot, or the Moon. DinoBenn (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How am I arguing in bad faith? I asked you for a reliable source from the last couple of years and you gave me an interview by a guy that writes articles about their experiences with ghosts. Which clearly isn't what I asked for. So your the one being bad faithed here. Either that or you don't know the guidelines and what a reliable source is. The fact that your acting like my issue has to do with the author's beliefs, instead of what they are writing about, makes me inclined to think your acting in bad faith though. Your mischaracterization of what I said about there being recent sources doesn't really make me think your being good faithed either. I could really care less if the author believes in god, but if they are going to write about their near death experience of heaven or whatever as if it actually happened then there's zero reason to assume they care about journalistic accuracy or fact checking. Let alone does the news outlet care about either of those things when its printing their ghost stories. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about ghosts, so the author's opinion on the existence of ghosts has no bearing on the reliability of the article. The publication is owned by Village Media, a well-known media company, and publishes on a number of topics including editorial pieces like the one you are referring to. Almost all news publications do this, including CBC and CTV, often on much more controversial topics. The Elliot Lake Today and its staff are not unreliable because you do not like one piece by a journalist. As for the subject of bad faith arguments, I have a hard time believing that a person could be arguing in good faith when they reply with "lol" to an article about a missing young woman, or when they have put so little thought into their reply that they have not bothered to check that their argument does not contain four misspellings of a common word like "you're". This is my fifth article about a missing person and the first that has been nominated for deletion (on the grounds of notability, not the quality of its citations) so I will not argue with your point that I am ignorant about how the process works since it is a clearly unsubstantiated ad hominem, the latest of many. DinoBenn (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to waste my time addressing the petty off-topic and relevant points you've made, like you taking issue with grammatical errors, but WP:REPUTABLE says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Except I will say it's laughable that you attacked me for miss-spelling a word in the same message your complaining about ad-hominem attacks. What's more hilarious though is that you asked me in a prior message to respect that your engaging with my criticism and then subsequently made various disrespectful claims about me. Including that I'm in acting bad faith and making may ad-hominem attacks against you. I get that you want the article to be kept because you care about the topic, but arguing in an extremely defensive and petty manor with people who vote delete isn't likely to result in the outcome your looking for. I'm not going to argue with you about it beyond that. Other people can review the references and make their own determinations. Ultimately my "vote" has extremely little weight in the outcome of this. So it's not worth arguing over. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is within guidelines by plenty of WP:RS and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The article has plenty of third party sources which is excellent. Article is well written. BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of this article is backed up by mulitiple, verifiable reliable sources. According to WP:NTEMP once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. It met WP:GNG years ago, and still does. Netherzone (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many sources used, but they aren't likely to be recent as the nom suggests, as this is basically a cold case at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Again, it is well-sourced. Severestorm28 22:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not temporary, so the fact that there are few to no recent sources doesn't matter: there's no rule that a topic is automatically non-notable just because it isn't still getting as much new coverage in 2022 as it did 15 years ago. And while there are a few sources in the article that aren't suitable or appropriate ("Ottawa Valley Search and Rescue Dog Association"?), there are more than enough that are. In principle, I'm not a fan of the "Wikipedia needs to have a 'disappearance of X' article about every person who's ever been reported missing" approach to article creation, but until there's a clear consensus against them we have to follow the quality and depth and range of the sourcing, and the quality and depth and range of these sources is mostly fine. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is sustained significant coverage from reliable sources that proves notability. -- Mike 🗩 20:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_24&oldid=1071972536"