Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Liz (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 20 July 2023 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iain Jennings (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< July 12 July 14 >

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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zim Afro T10

Zim Afro T10 (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 cricket competition, appearing on the WP:OFFICIALCRICKET list of tournaments considered non-notable (T10 cricket matches). Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Zim Afro T10 is probably fastest T10 league, with players from most ICC member countries. Also TV broadcasters exist from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, UK, Caribbean, Zimbabe among others. The tournament has already started and it was a great success. The article is very outdated currently. In fact, I came here to learn more about tournament and the teams, so there must be an audience to whom this article would serve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leghari k (talk • contribs) 15:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a new tournament which is going to start soon. Many well-known Zimbabwen players like Sikander Raza, Craig Ervine, Sean Williams are playing in the league. Many foreign players from test status countries like Taskin, Mushfiq, Robin Uthapa, Yusuf Pathan many more are playing. Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt bought Harare Hurricanes team in the league. It’s a notable upcoming cricket league. Jit Saha255 (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is similar to the Abu Dhabi T10 and the several pages of this tournament that exist. Zimbabwe is a full member and the League has several if not all the players from full member organization. 166.198.21.8 (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note that this article was originally a simple redirect to T10 cricket#Zim Afro T10. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is support for Keep and Redirection. Please take a moment and evaluate new sources to see if they can contribute to notabiiity for a stand-alone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has three sources, one of which is perfectly fine, one of which appears primary, and one of which appears to be a press release. Given it hasn't started yet and needs only one more source, either redirecting, draftifying, or finding an additional source are all valid options here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might want to consider merging either to or from 2023 Zim Afro T10 for starters - that can be recreated if we ever get a second edition (with this sort of league this is far from certain). It primarily contains scorecards which are basically statsdumps from external links and pretty much fail most things without prose to place them in context. I've gutted both articles of the trivia and so on and there's not a huge amount left. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the outcome of this AFD, I don't believe we need a season article for every season. Depending on the outcome of this AFD, I will be nominating that article for deletion or merging (depending on whether this article is deleted or kept). Just because an event may have multiple seasons, that doesn't mean we need a season article for every season of this tournament. The tournament itself is struggling to demonstrate notability, so each season definitely won't have enough coverage to independently pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's probably a waste of time, considering that we do allow pages on seasons, and the additional sources that have been added to this since I commented ten days ago clearly pass WP:GNG, showing the season article probably passes WP:GNG as well. We can merge in a year if this only has one season. SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The redirect seems better, it's almost TOOSOON at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ and none likely to emerge with it literally in the news Star Mississippi 02:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Wimbledon school incident

2023 Wimbledon school incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A car crash without special intentions or an extreme number of casualties? No reason to believe that this would ever pass WP:NOTNEWS and will get WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Fram (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per @Wjfox2005. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but leaning towards include. This clearly isn't a "normal" car crash. It's currently the main headline on all major UK news outlets. A girl of eight has died, and 16 other persons are now known to be injured, many critically. So the casualty figure does seem notable, and I wouldn't be so quick to delete this article. It could certainly do with more info, though (currently only two lines of text). Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A very common type of accident whose only claim to N is that it was near a big event where reporters could report on it very quickly, and is very likely an accident rather than a purposeful occurrence where the driver intended to hurt anyone. Nate • (chatter) 01:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This event was not part of something larger ("The incident was not being treated as terrorism-related" [12]). It sounds like she lost control of her car and crashed, nothing out of WP:MILL coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This sounds like it was a tragic accident, but there's nothing that makes it notable in an encyclopedic sense. This is Paul (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since this just occurred, virtually all sources are going to be primary. Lacking any notable person being involved; or as previously mentioned, no large death toll or nefarious intent, there's no reason to think this will ever be anything but NOTNEWS content. At best, this is TOOSOON, but to be totally honest, I don't see this ever being notable. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a car crash, like the thousands of others that happen every day. There is no way that this will get sustained coverage later on, and absent that, it's not notable. AryKun (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Wimbledon, London#History. Firstly, I think the contributions of previous editors have made clear – to the point of WP:SNOWBALL – that this article should not survive the AfD. I quote WP:EVENTCRITERIA: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths..."shock" news... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nevertheless, dissenting editors have rightly pointed out that this is a significant incident that has dominated headlines in the UK and received widespread national coverage, though such coverage is unlikely to be sustained. So a mention in the local area's history section may be appropriate, and will likely take no more than two or three sentences. (The primary school itself probably doesn't meet notability coverage.) The nominated article can always be recreated if 'something further' does offer 'additional enduring significance', but this would need to be more than a higher death toll – for example, say, an official enquiry that makes significant policy recommendations. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would we merge this current-day thing to an article summarizing a thousand-year old community? This is not going to retain any more significant coverage past this week outside pundits for the Daily Mail and the junk news channels and maybe a couple days when the driver pleads and is sentenced. It's sad and it's happened, but we are not, and should not, be a database of every single accident. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply By 'merge', I only intend that we might append two or, at a stretch, three sentences to the section, which also mention the event's significant coverage in national newspapers. Two issues may understandably make this alternative to deletion seem out of place:
1. The Wimbledon, London#History section could be expanded with recent history (it currently ends in the 1970s and 1980s).
2. The Wimbledon, London article effectively incorporates two communities centred on different high streets which may well justify separate articles: the "old" village and the "new" town down the hill. The site of this incident is on the edge of the former settlement. (Rather tellingly, the lead section includes neighbouring wards in Wimbledon's population count, up to two of which have separate entries: Raynes Park and Wimbledon Park – though the article focuses on the park, the short description refers to the settlement.) In an article on the village, which is a much smaller settlement, a mention of this incident might seem more apposite – in light of the significant coverage.
Asking as charitably as possible how this incident might merit inclusion in the encyclopaedia even if it is short of a separate article, one consideration might be that yes, this event is WP:MILL to the extent that fatalities from cars occur daily, but it has also generated significant coverage and featured on the front pages of many national newspapers, which is not WP:MILL. Wikipedia does not work on precedent, but I cannot help but think that the Wallasey pub shooting, also in headlines in recent days, could equally be described as WP:MILL if it were not for the headlines it generated. From WP:NCRIME: As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think its a bit of a stretch to compare this event to explosions which killed 5+ people. Again, there was no larger motive here based on the investigation being conducted. What level of detail would you focus on? There is the car, the person driving the car, the victims, and the reactions. Lets start with the car... if the model or make of the car was found to be at fault then yes that would be a WP:LASTING effect. I can't think about much regarding the person driving the car as they aren't being linked to terrorism. As for the victims, are they notable? If one of them gets an article then this article could be redirected there. Finally, reactions are routine... unless you have the King or Prime Minister directly making a statement (not through someone else) I don't see how its notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From WP:LASTING: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. This isn't a necessary condition for notability, just as WP:SCOPE – in this case, coverage by national newspapers – is not a sufficient condition: Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Whispyhistory: With all due respect, that would present a bit of bias. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge This article was probably created too soon, but this AfD was also initiated too soon. This event is currently falling somewhere between run-of-the-mill (those incidents don't get breaking news push notifications for updates, nor comments from national political leaders) and clearly notable. This indicates there should be coverage somewhere, but not necessarily as a stand-alone article. If the school was notable, then there would be no question that this should be merged to that article rather than deleted, but the school not being notable does not change the notability of the event. As noted above, the Wimbledon, London article (either as is or after a split) would make a suitable target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wimbledon, London#History, but in brief. I would not object to the deletion either. It should be remembered that the tragedy of the story or the number of victims is not fundamental in this case, what is fundamental is the notability as understood by the rules. The notability of much larger incidents is often called into question here. Deckkohl (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel this AfD was created a bit too soon. The nominator on 6 July expressed the view that the article was unlikely to get WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Sadly the second death of an 8-year-old girl on 9 July led to further significant national news coverage and the fact that a woman in her forties is reported to be critically ill in hospital, with over a dozen further casualties means it may continue to get sustained coverage. I agree with Wjfox2005 that the incident was not a "normal" car crash. For the Land Rover to crash into a school, kill two children and for there to have been many other casualties taken to hospital makes this a notable and unusual event. There were public reactions expressed from a number of senior British politicians, which doesn't tend to happen for a "normal" car crash. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The bulk of editors are arguing for Deletion but the most recent participants are advocating Keep or Merge. Would a selective Merge preserve content that Keep supporters is important? Would this outcome and turning this page into a redirect to the town be okay with those seeking Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This article is about a car accident with two fatalities. No one involved was notable. It's certainly not the first time a car has crashed into a school, nor will it be the last. It is a totally insignificant event to all but the friends and family of those involved. There's absolutely no reason to merge any information about a COMMONPLACE auto accident into an article on a thousand year old city. Notability is designed to ensure that sufficient SECONDARY sources to verify the accuracy of the article. At this point, all sources are news accounts and I suppose that many editors do not realize that news accounts are PRIMARY. I frankly doubt they'll ever be any secondary sources. What reason would there ever be to do a secondary analysis of a relatively minor traffic accident. WP:RECENT, WP:LOCAL and WP:COMMONPLACE all apply. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. We're chasing a moving target if we try to evaluate the sources now. (We're here discussing whether to delete an article, not whether to create one; it's a bit odd to cite WP:DELAY while ignoring the immediately following section.) Beyond that, I do not believe that the above citation to WP:PRIMARY is correct. I can find nothing there to support the claim that news accounts are PRIMARY -- and I would be surprised if I could, since that statement seems categorically false. Plenty of the available sources here meet the WP:SECONDARY requirement of contain[ing] analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. But any detailed analysis of sources (and thus of notability) is pointless at this juncture, which is why we have RAPID in the first place. (I don't think it's foregone conclusion that this is a transient event with no broader implications -- it will be interesting, for example, to see if Norman Baker's call for SUV restrictions based on this incident gets any non-tabloid uptake.) -- Visviva (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. While there is some disagreement over the level of independence of cited sources, delete has the upper hand in terms of both arguments and numbers. Arguments relating to the fact that the series is still airing suggest that this could be a WP:TOOSOON case. signed, Rosguill talk 02:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjithame

AfDs for this article:
Ranjithame (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; I can find no reliable sources to indicate notability (a search for "Ranjithame" finds only a Tamil-language song). Also, WP:FUTURE- this isn't a catalogue of upcoming minor soap operas. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Absolutely no sources, no claim of notability and no information useful to the reader. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 17:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This and whatever I had in the first nomination are all namesakes of the popular song that came in a Tamil movie, and this minor namesake's NN is clearly shown by the lack of citations. The best use of this article name is to redirect it to the film's soundtrack article. Karnataka (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that this article itself should be deleted, the above was just an idea with the link Karnataka (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. In addition, I would object to the redirect suggested above as having little justification. Deckkohl (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on the redirect issue; it's a bit of a strecth, and possibly WP:ASTONISHING, but still comes under {{r from subtopic}}. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate new sources. Also, noting that this article was the subject of an AFD recently that closed as Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject of the previous nomination (by me) was completely different to this one. This is about an upcoming TV series, the previous one was about a game show. Like I mentioned above, the usage of the term 'Ranjithame' has bolstered after the release of the song in the same name, which is probably the primary topic of this. Karnataka (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: here's a source assessment, input/modifications appreciated. I hope to let this table represent consensus, not just my own assessment, so feel free to edit it. At the moment, GNG is shaky, largely because I'm unsure about source reliability. I also quite conflicted about tThe first times of india source- it seems like routine coverage and unreliable, but I may be biased against any article that uses language like "deets inside" in the headline. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Hindu Tamil Thisai
 ~ No consensus No Passing mention ✘ No
News18 Tamil Nadu
 Yes Secondary news source Yes ? Unknown
News18 Tamil Nadu (2)
 Yes Secondary news source ~ Seems half-and-half, input is appreciated ? Unknown
The Times of India
 Yes Secondary news source ~ No consensus. WP:ROUTINE coverage? ? Unknown
cinema.vikatan.com
 Yes Secondary news source Yes No No mention ✘ No
Times of India 2
 Yes Secondary news source ~ No consensus WP:ROUTINE coverage? ? Unknown
Trailer
 No Yes WP:ABOUTSELF Yes ✘ No
Trailer/promo
 No Yes WP:ABOUTSELF Yes ✘ No
Conclusion
 Yes ~ ? Unknown
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}}.
Well, feel free to modify the source assessment table. As I said, I'll let it represent group consensus, not just my own opinion. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the Tamil Thisai source is not independent - it's only two paragraphs, and first being a introduction to the director and the second is a quote from him that explains his ideas for the story. I'm not exactly sure how factually correct the first News18 source is because as it notes in the article itself, there were no official details on the serial. Also note that only three sentences provide information on the serial, with others just being actor history. The second News18 source is about the actor, their involvement in another serial, and a passing mention that they'll take part in this one. Vikatan source talks about a completely different topic. I feel like both ToI sources are routine coverage, half of the content is just about actor history and the content about the serial are in both ToI articles. Karnataka (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source analysis is fairly explicit in its conclusions. It must be delete as it fails WP:SIGCOV. The article should have been created in draft. It is clear a bunch of UPE editors have decided to promote it on Wikipedia. I'll be sending them to coin. scope_creepTalk 10:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is still current and ongoing with new comments recently added. Relisting for one more cycle to help ascertain consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The show still airing, in future can add more source. P.Karthik.95 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL argument. Once this may be shown as a notable TV series for encyclopedic entry can definitely be recreated in draftspace like mentioned. Karnataka (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is a dispute about the source analysis table results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. If better source material becomes available in the future and someone is interested in having this draftified, please let me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audel Laville

Audel Laville (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found one good piece of coverage here, which I added, but unfortunately this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Other sources like this and this are not independent. It might be a good idea to Draftify. JTtheOG (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I've never stated this in a closure before but I'm basing this decision in part due to majority views because there are conflicting interpretations of WP:JUDGE. The other option is No consensus but there seems to be a majority of editors seeing this as a Keep situation.

It's disconcerting as a regular closer of AFD discussions to have such a wide variety of closure results for indviduals in the same occupation. Maybe it's time to amend WP:JUDGE to be more definitive? Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew J. Maddox

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. There are also no secondary sources Let'srun (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.MIAJudges (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." Let'srun (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There simply are no independent, third-party, reliable sources that give the subject the "significant coverage" in multiple sources the GNG requires in order to meet notability standards. By contrast, being nominated to the federal bench or appearing on the White House website meet no notability standards on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 06:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single previous nominee to be a federal judge in the history of Wikipedia has never had their page taken down or moved because they were not notable except for Tiffany Cartwright. And her page has been reinstated but she hasn’t been confirmed yet. So respectfully, what your advocating is actually going against standards on Wikipedia. MIAJudges (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On Wikipedia, notability is determined through meeting one or more of several notability guidelines: in this case, for instance, by meeting WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV or WP:POLITICIAN. SIGCOV is the key here: it is not sufficient for a source (however reliable) to say "President Biden sent Soandso's name to the Senate for nomination." SIGCOV goes into some detail about what's needed, but the gist is that a source needs to discuss the subject -- not the nominating process, not President Biden, not the Senate Judiciary Committee, the subject -- in "significant detail," so that an article could be credibly made from that source alone.

    And that is it. I've told you a couple of times over that there are no other pertinent, explicit criteria. I have challenged you a couple times over to demonstrate that there is pertinent, explicit criteria such as you describe. We do not make determinations based on the standards you think should be in place were you the one making the rules here. We make them based on the notability criteria already in place. Period.

    A couple more corrections: you state, without the slightest shred of evidence, that every single previous nominee had an article prior to their confirmation. You also state, erroneously, that the Cartwright article has been reinstated to articlespace. It has not. It is in draft space right now. Ravenswing 10:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravenswing
    You know very well that the Tiffany Cartwright page was back up when I wrote that. The page was taken down AFTER I wrote that & you know it was. To write I "state, erroneously, that the Cartwright article has been reinstated to article space" is misleading when you know it has since been moved back after I wrote that. I will assume your acting in good faith (Although your comments on the Janet Hall deletion page is making that harder for me to do) & perhaps you made an error in your false assertion.
    MIAJudges (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact, I did not know one way or another, since I was not responding to your statement at the moment you wrote it. I checked to see if it was indeed up and found that it was not. As to acting in good faith, it would be good faith to strike your erroneous statement. You have not yet done so. Ravenswing 04:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You were not responding to my statement??? I did not see a separate paragraph for your statement. It was right under my statement & contradicting what I wrote in my statement. I wrote mine at 06:19, 1 July 2023 according to the time stamp & you wrote your statement (Once again directly under mine) at 10:28, 1 July 2023 a full 4 hours later. But I will assume good faith & perhaps it was all a coincidence.
    MIAJudges (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there could be a consensus to Draftify this article, as the later participants suggest.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist given recent keep arguments that magistrate judges should meet WP:NJUDGE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as they're already a judge with a pending nomination, and the coverage is at least trending beyond marginal. Mason (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the best argument against considering United States magistrate judges to meet NJUDGE is found in footnote 13 to the guideline: People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion (i.e. WP:NBASIC). That's not really true of magistrate judges in my experience. And the reason why Article III judges "almost always satisfy" NBASIC is, I would venture, precisely the confirmation process and associated politicking. (Plenty of judges happily vanish into obscurity as soon as they join the bench.) OTOH, it might be reasonable to give magistrate judgeship some weight in borderline cases, even if we don't give it conclusive weight. -- Visviva (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think WP:BASIC due to:
  1. https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-biden-baltimore-judges-20230320-amucz5rwsnhx3d343qcke4nopm-story.html. (that's behind a paywall, but you can read the content here)
Other significant coverage, but I'm not sure of their reliability:
  1. https://www.thechesapeaketoday.com/2023/03/21/court-news-biden-appoints-matthew-j-maddox-and-brenda-hurson-as-federal-judges-in-district-of-maryland/
  2. https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/03/21/biden-nominates-two-baltimore-magistrates-to-district-judge-posts/ CT55555(talk) 13:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Very little input, but ultimately the one "keep" opinion does not provide any sources that establish notability. Sandstein 13:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaiming the Glory

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Looks questionable. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverb Records

Reverb Records (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)

Record labels are business, not a band, so they're expected to meet WP:NCORP. Verifiability of existence do not clear the hurdle of notability. This is non-notable, because it lacks significant, intellectually independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, of which at least one must be broadly circulated media. Graywalls (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. In terms of NCORP and GNG, and following my own WP:BEFORE, I have added all the sources I could find. All are trivial passing mentions in national newspapers (one single passing mention in The Times (UK)), fleeting mentions in regional newspapers (INM regionals for Sligo and Drogheda) and a word or two in music mags (like Hot Press). As the org is based in Portland, Oregon, I also looked in The Oregonian, finding only this single source. In each case the subject is mentioned, in passing, in articles which are substantively about something else. I can find no in depth coverage to support the text - not to mind supporting a claim to notability. In terms of NOTINHERITED, a small (<10 employee?) independent label doesn't inherit notability from its customers/partners/whatever. No more than any other org/business/subject would. The COI/SPA overtones also do not help. Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. After being relisted three times and listed at AFD for 28 days, there's no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bambery

AfDs for this article:
Chris Bambery (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)

Multiple issues unaddressed in article for multiple years. Fails WP:NPOL and also WP:NOTEWORTHY. Let'srun (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly does not pass WP:NPOL. Among Bambery's books, "The Second World War: A Marxist History" was extensively reviewed in the Marxist press but doesn't seem to have been picked up by mainstream reviewers. "Catalonia Reborn" was the same story. "A Rebel's Guide to Gramsci" is, at 64 pages, more a pamphlet than a book. "A People's History of Scotland" was reviewed in both The Scotsman and The Herald but I couldn't find any other reviews in the major press. The two reviews of "A People's History of Scotland" are probably not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. On the whole, my !vote would be Delete. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:AUTHOR criterion 3, as well explained by @Visviva above, but for the utter avoidance of doubt, I've created A People's History of Scotland. CT55555(talk) 02:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Village Enterprise

Village Enterprise (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 about an organization that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH. Written in a promotional tone though it has been previously trimmed. Also sources are mostly passingmentions. Jamiebuba (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft: Agree with WeirdNAnnoyed, I have done significant cleanup to the article, but it will need complete resourcing given none of the sources are in an accepted encyclopedic format. Furthermore, the sections are non-standard and the remaining sections will need to be rewritten from scratch. There is likely enough source material and citations for an article; however, given the article's condition it should not be in main space right now, rather in draft space. Editchecker123 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the article trimming, would the nominator be okay with draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I try not to see these discussions as an eternal battle between "Keep" and "Delete" but is this content substantial and of any use to the project, now or in the future. I'm sure that POV is not codified in policy anywhere but, for me, it helps me understand when articles are really crap and need to go and when, in another case, time in Draft space might eventually lead to something worthwhile for our readers. But thanks for the support. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artlist

Artlist (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 coverage is either routine, such as funding news, etc., or it is in unreliable sources. As such, it clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - has plenty of sources, many more available. Way more coverage available than a "trivial mention" as in WP:CORPDEPTH. Company is still a healthy active corporation and is generating new products in the media field. Checking the stats, the page gets 150 views a day so, it is certainly notable. Could use an update and some exposition on the products but the page is protected and with all the issues, I am sure it would get flagged as advertorial.
Blarneyfife7 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: most of the sources are repeated multiple times, and many of the sources do not include authors which makes it difficult to establish independence for WP:Reliable sources
Editchecker123 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The sources here are OK, others could be added including https://fxhome.com/news/artlist-acquires-fxhome but there are no end of online sources. There are currently sources that meet criteria of WP:SIRS but this could be improved further. Artlist is a highly regarded company in the creative space, with millions of users and growing products, so the need for representation on Wikipedia will only increase over time. KirstieT (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) — KirstieT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Can you please link 2 or preferably 3 sources that meet WP:SIRS. I believe I looked at all 30 in the article and couldn't find a single one, but I may have missed them. I've no criticism or doubt of the company itself. However, especially with companies, without such sources it's hard to uphold pillars 1 and 2 —siroχo 08:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - There are actually thousands of independent reviews on the company done by professional content creators 11:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.152.55 (talk)
KEEP - Sources seem reliable to me, however if the WP:SIRS criteria are thought to be shaky, then it can be a good idea to WP:STUBIFY the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FE13:8400:725A:CF6B:567F:2D3A (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even ignoring the comments by accounts with 1 edit (to this AFD), I'm seeing "Weak Delete" or "Leaning Delete" and given the pushback from SPAs, I'd like to see a stronger consensus before closing this discussion. Of course, another closer might view things differently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the pushback. Do what feels right. :-)   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An admin, doing "what feels right", without the backing of editor consensus, can get you called to WP:Deletion review for a cavity inspection. Very unpleasant. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete. TWL wasn't working for me over the weekend, so I decided to wait even though I was mostly done. At this point though, I give up. Open a case request on me, I don't care. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete: This article doesn't just fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, it's also written like and advert and almost all accounts contributing are either single-purpose, or are paid contributors (both banned and following the policy). It would be best to delete, even if notable, so that it can be rewritten without COI, and to avoid the article reading like an advert. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP and HighKing. NB: I was going to close this as delete, but since I've edited the article, decided that it was preferable to let someone else do that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All this is laughable that this article could ever be recreated without using the same references or doing exactly the same work, People disguising they are paid editors and attacking a page so they can try and grab it when it goes back to upwork or to try and get them on a monthly plan. You are thieves thinking these guys want to pay three or 4 times for an article.. You are ruining your own platform and AI will soon prove without a doubt you are all doing paid editing, if it hasnt already and the network admins are just hiding it from you. This article is in a half dozen different categories.. Cant wait.. Going to suggest it to arb and the foundation, AI be used to identify admins and editors hiding UPE. Time for honoring yourself will soon be over highness. 47.153.142.52 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Changes were made and the article has added significant references.. Let me also remind you that this will be a sure thing entry into the hebrew edition and then it could easily be moved here without any issues.. 47.153.142.52 (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact this is an Israeli startup that has made these contributions from a country so small... also makes it inherently notable. 47.153.142.52 (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Myronuk

Kathryn Myronuk (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 and potentially lacking in WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myronuk contributed and / or was mentioned in multiple books, however, she always works in the background. Hence, it is first not noticeable. I support her notability. See example: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Robots_Ethics_and_the_Future_of_Jobs/kQc8EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justynazander (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. She appears to be a futurist associated with Raymond Kurzweil and Singularity University, but without scholarly impact (no citations in Google Scholar, no authored books with published reviews), so we have no pass of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Of the two sources that look like the could plausibly contribute to WP:GNG-based notability (Wired and CNN), the CNN piece has no depth of coverage on her and is dubiously independent of the Wired piece (it merely repeats Wired's "knowledge sommelier" catchphrase and says she is associated with Singularity University). The Wired article itself merely quotes her; it does not contain any content about her beyond a job title. So we do not have any of the multiple in-depth reliable independent sources required by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not find independent sources for her. In the Abundance book there is no mention of her, not even in the acknowledgments, and in the Kurtzweil book she is acknowledged as "one of the in house readers" (and dozens of people are thanked for more than that). I just don't find anything that can be attributed to this person that would be notable. Lamona (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Editors more or less agree that specific coverage of the subject doesn't quite meet GNG, and that relevant information can be included in myriad other articles about Russian relations with the countries of the Arab League. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab League–Russia relations

Arab League–Russia 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)

WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" table data dump was already removed per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. What remains does not really amount to anything: we've got a map, we've got an old 2009 picture of RF ex-president Medvedev and AL ex-sec-gen Moussa, we've got a completely WP:UNSOURCED and irrelevant section about the "Russian-Arab Business Council" that has nothing to do with the Arab League, but is instead a combo of 18 bilateral business councils of Russia with 18 Arab states (so not even all 22 member states of the Arab League), then a random See also section, then some more external links WP:PROMO for the irrelevant business councils, and some guy's WordPress blog, then two templates and two categories. That's it. This isn't an article. It's random vague stuff lumped together. In theory it is a legitimate topic, but we should WP:TNT this because the current mess isn't worth anyone's consideration. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to The All-American Rejects. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gaylor

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

No indication of individual notability; WP:NM#C6 doesn't apply since no indication that Hushmoney is notable either. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. This isn't a consensus opinion but this discussion has been relisted three times and it seems like the resolution that most participants could be satisfied with. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KJTB-LD

KJTB-LD (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)

Just-created article on a non-notable LPTV station that hasn't even gone on the air yet! Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I consider it bad faith to send articles to AFD the day that they are created. Just because it hasn't gone on the air yet is not a valid reason to send it to AFD. PROD is typically the first step to deletion, then if that is contested, then AFD is the next step. I recommend closing this AFD until more time has passed to give the page author more time to add to it.   ArcAngel   (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•COMMENT - This article is literally one week old, we need to give it time before doing an AFD. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused: the article says the station has been on the air since 2022 but the nomination says it's not on the air yet.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever issues this article may have, this process just seems wrong.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the very same concern that I raised above.   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep It's just too early. Is the sourcing probably going to be kinda flimsy for this? Yes. Would a merge to KAIT be worth considering? Maybe. But give the article some time. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Gossip Train

Toxic Gossip Train (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 music piece, could perhaps merge into the article about the individual. Has not charted. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or Delete I created this article under the impression that this was an official single released by Colleen Ballinger but since it has been stated by Ballinger's legal representatives that the single was illegally uploaded to Ballinger's official accounts by a third party. While the article could be reworked into an article about the video in which the song was sung, "hi.", this seems unusual to me. I do think this will be considered one of the most infamous "apology" videos in the future, due to the news coverage, the fact that she sings a 10 minute song as her "apology" and because she did not really apologize at all in it. However, other notable infamous YouTuber apology videos (e.g. Laura Lee, Tati Westbrook, Logan Paul, James Charles, Shane Dawson, Jeffree Star) do not have Wikipedia articles. I think the information featured in this article can be summarized in the Colleen Ballinger article, as were the videos for the aforementioned YouTubers.
Andthereitis (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Skin

Alien Skin (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 with no sourcing found. Does not appear to have met any criteria for musical artists. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - it appears to be a musical artist who at the very least has been mentioned in the media in Uganda. Needs strengthening, and the discography section needs completely redoing as per WP:NOTDIR ..
4theloveofallthings (talk) 4theloveofallthings (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Essex

Emma Essex (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, can only find the usual social media links, no news for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lack of reliable sourcing. The article cites two sources: Mobygames.com is an indiscriminate directory that provides no significant coverage, and Livore.it is a music review site with a short history - and no established track record of reliability. This doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST - MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Rai

Jitendra Rai (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 person. I'm sure the role of "little boy's father" was good, but they are all trivial roles. Nothing found for this individual for ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serge B. Provost

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

Appears to be a non-notable academic with routine listings in various school-specific sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just added four more published reviews, two each of two of his books, to the article. Normally I would count five reviews for two books as being good enough for WP:AUTHOR. I am hesitant to do so here, because the reviews are in MathSciNet and zbMATH, which might be considered routine because they are reputed to review essentially everything in research-level pure mathematics. In fact, they only reviewed two of Provost's four books, with a third book merely indexed with a copy of the publisher blurb by each, and a fourth book not listed at all. I'm not sure whether that should be interpreted as evidence that these reviews should count as being more selective than we have traditionally counted them (because obviously they are selecting some books and not others) or as evidence that Provost's books are not making significant impact (because only half of them even got reviewed by the review-everything sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't think that the MathSciNet or zbMath reviews are the kind discussed under WP:NAUTHOR. I did add one more review contributing to NAUTHOR to the article but that's still 1 + 3 reviews on two books. This is marginal. I am brought over to weak delete, as the books are multiply-authored, and as it looks to me like the subject here is overshadowed by his more notable coauthor A. M. Mathai. Citations look weak for WP:NPROF C1 in a moderate citation field. Comment that while he appears to be a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, this is what they call their base level of membership (so no WP:NPROF C3 apparent); associate of the Society of Actuaries also would fail to meet WP:NPROF C1 so far as I can see (if it could even be verified). I will watch this discussion in case more reviews or other evidence of notability are uncovered. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The considerable effort put toward saving this actually makes the "delete" opinions stronger, as despite that effort, no clear evidence of an NACTOR or GNG pass has been found. I would be willing to provide a user/draft-space copy with anyone who will undertake to wait to recreate this until clearer evidence of notability is available. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhya Vijayakumar

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

Appears non-notable, with only small parts in movies. I find no extensive sourcing (could be some in the native language). Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - She doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR due to lack of notable roles in her filmography and no in-depth coverage WP:SIGCOV. Mentioned webseries Rock Paper Scissors but no references to support notability. Can editor provide more reliable sources to prove notability? DSN18 (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Provided reliable sources regarding Rock Paper Scissors. Vidhya Vijayakumar was one of the protagonist of the web series which ran for two seasons. The Nerdy Boy (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an english wikipedia you need to give notable references written in english language and from reliable sources. Also the given references doesn't mention about her role in the series. DSN18 (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • General Comment on one point: Being an english wikipedia you need to give notable references written in english language and from reliable sources. is not completely correct. Reliable yes but not necessarily in English. The guideline makes that perfectly clear.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DSN18, Mushy Yank is correct here, there is no requirement that sources be in English or be available online either. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i agree @Liz and @Mushy Yank with your views and have striked out the comment. DSN18 (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Haruna

Mohammed Haruna (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 BLP is very poorly sourced and shows no sign of passing WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. There are passing mentions of a footballer for King Faisal with this name, see Ghana Sports Page, but stats sites like Pulse Sports confirm that this other Haruna was born in 2002. Neither player of this name seems to have sufficient coverage for an article and certainly the 1988 one is not notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 01:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainer (The Belle Stars song)

The Entertainer (The Belle Stars 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)

I do not think this meets the criteria for WP:NSONG as it appears to have virtually no coverage online from any notable sources. It also appears to have only barely charted in one country. Yellowfrog81 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time to look through all of them, but the Internet Archive has a long list of potential sources which could be of use to this article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I looked through the sources on the Internet Archive and it seems that most of them only list very basic information about the song (e.g. "The Belle Stars came out with a new single called "The Entertainer"") and do not discuss it in depth. I only found one article which provides a description of the song's music video, but I do not believe that information would give the Wikipedia article adequate substance. Yellowfrog81 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed, no opinions have need voiced
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Analog coverage issue here, but signs point toward it meeting GNG.
    1. From the article, [22]
    2. A bit of SIGCOV about how the band was glad to work with a woman producer who let them play their own instruments resulting in this single. [23]
    3. Here is a blog quoting a review of the single in a magazine [24]. Here's another blog that suggest the issue of that magazine it was printed in.[25] Seems pretty likely this review exists.
    4. "Visual coverage" where where a youth magazine published the lyrics with a photo and some art [26]
—siroχo 05:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. In retrospect this could have been kept before. Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo (programming language)

Mojo (programming language) (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)

Programming language, with no serious claims to notability. Was sent to draft by NPP, banged back into mainspace with the claim of multiple RS. I don't see them here and WP:BEFORE shows no record of enduring influence or prominence/notability as a language tool. And the article's promotional, to boot. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. InfoWorld seems fine. Others do not seem to be independent. Definitely has the feel of a promotional article, too. —siroχo 14:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, I am fine with draftify proposed below as well —siroχo 20:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge (see comment below). The sources are in the front: 2 infoworld, the register, and analytics india magazine. As far as I can tell they are all independent, reliable, and cover the language in depth, as required for WP:GNG. The fact that infoworld wrote about it again shows there is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage. There is more coverage too, they're just blogs and stuff that's not really reliable. But what is there seems sufficient, and I'm sure if something interesting happens, e.g. it goes out of beta, there will be another round of news coverage, allowing improvements in the article's tone and quality to make it less hype-y. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with @Mathnerd314159. A quick news search of "Mojo programming language" will show a number of reliable sources including Medium, Adafruit, and yahoo!finance. Additionally, the project lead for Mojo, Chris Lattner, is the creator of several widely used projects including the LLVM, Clang, and MLIR (co-founder) compiler frameworks, as well as Swift, Apple's de facto programming language. If Lattner's record holds, Mojo has a high likelihood of being widely adopted among machine-learning researchers and systems developers alike once it is released to the public. I will look into revising the page to reflect the wider range of sources available. Zramsey11 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Medium is not considered reliable per WP:RSP. - Indefensible (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The article may seem iffy to some now but there will only continue to be more sources on the topic. Not to say I think the current sources are bad though.
Rlink2 (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like WP:CRYSTAL though, I agree it might become notable but right now feels somewhat premature. - Indefensible (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 18:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Even treating this as a corporate product (which I agree is the best approach at this stage), this seems to meet WP:CORPDEPTH based on the InfoWorld and Analytics India articles. Both appear to provide hundreds of words of in-depth independent analysis that provides source material for a decent article, or as CORPDEPTH puts it they make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub. This in-depth review from The New Stack, a source I'm not familiar with but which is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles, also seems fine. At least on the surface all three of these appear to meet WP:SIRS. And there's certainly nothing surprising about such an initiative attracting this level of attention in the current environment. That said, if there are genuine and substantial problems with the sources, I'd suggest merging to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo. -- Visviva (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a skeptical of the independence of Analytics India source due to their "branded content" program: [27] "Syndicated brand material or custom featured stories are great ways to share your viewpoint."
    I'm very skeptical of The New Stack, they seem to be the "journalism" arm of a tech investment firm: [28][29]. And the author is referred to as a developer marketing writer[30]
    Currently the only source I trust is InfoWorld, and to be fair, it's a good article. —siroχo 05:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't seen WP:CORPDEPTH, but looking at it now there is a line about discounting "any material that is substantially based on press releases (churnalism), even if published by independent sources". The register article is substantially based on quoting the Modular blog post announcing Mojo and the non-independent fast.ai article, so I think would count as churnalism. And maybe the first infoworld article, it doesn't cite any sources and the talking points ("Full compatibility", "low-level control", etc.) are suspiciously similar to the blog post. But I think the Analytics India is independent - the author is on the staff, not a contributor, so it's not syndicated material, and the comparison with Julia seems out of place for a corporate piece. And the second infoworld article seems like a legitimate "I read Mojo's documentation" kind of piece.
    I did see the New Stack article but I think it's a contributed article (as described in [31]), as the author is not listed on the staff, (although, she has many more posts than 1 per 3 months, so maybe she does have a close relationship with TNS?). But, regardless, from the colloquial language like "Advertising, amirite?" I don't think it went through much of an editorial review, let alone fact-checking like a reputable news source. I think it just counts as a blog post hence unreliable.
    So that leaves us at 2 reliable sources. I like the merging idea, certainly in this discussion Zramsey11's primary argument for notability was that the team is led by Chris Lattner and he has a good track record of releasing languages, so discussing Mojo in the context of Chris Lattner seems warranted. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo. I agree with other participants that Infoworld is IMO SIGCOV by GNG standards (though I'm neutral on whether it meets the mark using the stricter corporate product standards) and is a RS. However, I'm not especially convinced by the other sources. NewStack has an about us page but no clear editorial policies and the author does not appear to be a subject-matter-expert (developer marketing writer is very questionable), so I don't think it's a reliable source. Likewise, Analytics India lacks a clear editorial process and the branded content program and other info in the abouts/advertising section doesn't give me much confidence. I would be more inclined to think it's reliable had there been clear subject-matter-expertise among its stuff or widespread USEBYOTHERS that I'm not seeing here, though I am not 100% sure whether this is unreliable or not as I'm not especially familiar with Indian technology-related sources. Otherwise, my search on Google mainly found blogs and developer sites that doesn't seem to meet the requirements of GNG or NPRODUCT, so to me (albeit weakly) this doesn't meet GNG. However, there's some sourced info from RS (Infoworld) that would warrant a merge/redirect to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo as an ATD. VickKiang (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I heard about it recently. As a software developement project it has a space on Wikipedia, per long consensus. Coverage on three continents. scope_creepTalk 10:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriele Bernasconi

Gabriele Bernasconi (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)

Footballer that has played mostly in the 4th and 5th tiers of Swiss football and has no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. In my searches, I found Urner Wochenblatt, which is just an image caption, and Chalcio. The independent content in the Chalcio article is just (translated) With Gabriele Bernasconi – the least beaten goalkeeper among those in the six rounds of the category ... Raised in Lugano as a footballer, our (Photo AC Taverne) made it all the way through the Juventus youth academy and three years in the first team. The rest is just pure Q&A and quotes. Even if this article were considered acceptable, GNG and SPORTBASIC require multiple sources showing significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. And I hope these valuable sources find their way into the article. I didn't follow the suggestion to Merge this article but as far as I can see in the comments, the Merge target doesn't exist yet. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuj Chain Dam

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBUILD. Possible redirect to whatever body of water it connects to.... which isn't even noted in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't want to straight up !vote keep since I haven't personally reviewed or searched for non-English sources, but power plants almost always will receive a level of coverage, and it seems probable it can be sourced using sources in the local language. SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are small plants but nevertheless interesting. Our article says this chain of run-of-river is near Sisakht. If you look at the Google Maps satellite view, this is a hilly, arid location with some big creeks (or small rivers) and small canals. On those streams, you'll see some of these structures. What's harder to find is the refs that I know should be out there. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google translation of our Farsi (Persian) article
  • Bostani, Fardin (August 1998). "Engineering Geological Investigations of the Master Plan of Pul Klu-Yasuj River Chain Power Plants". Geological survey of Iran. Retrieved 13 July 2023. Google translation from Farsi.
  • This translated article gives details to expand our article with info on individual structures. (Archived Farsi version)
Meets notability requirements and has information for significant expansion.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Eliyahu M. Goldratt. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Choice (Goldratt book)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, and has no sources cited. Could be merged to Eliyahu M. Goldratt or theory of constraints as an WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Nasir Safi

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

I found no sources in ProQuest or internet searches, including Persian searches. He played at a very low level in Germany but I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV there either. Does not seem to pass WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which is the minimum requirement for any sportsperson. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CarSim

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication if the sources have WP:SIGCOV, so seems to fail WP:GNG. First two sources seem to have been written by the article's initial author. UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Sorry haven't done AfD for yonks, can't remember the etiquette. Anyway, Carsim is used intensively in one small field, vehicle dynamics simulation. It is not the market leader, but it has been around forever. There's virtually no google coverage of it other than press releases so I suppose its notability is questionable. Greglocock (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would mean that the field is too small to be of interest for a wide audience. gidonb (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above. gidonb (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Los Carayos

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication the band passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is significant coverage in:
Jfire (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to War of Mutina. Star Mississippi 01:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Octavian's march on Rome

Octavian's march on Rome (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 entire article is a WP:CFORK which wholly overlaps with the War of Mutina. This march is described by no reliable sources as a civil war. The extent of the reliable sources (ie not uncritically copying Appian) is also very sparse on the specifics of Octavian marching on the city: there is no basis for an independent article. All the text The vast majority of the text in the article at present is also WP:COPYVIO as it simply copies without attribution my work on War of Mutina; what isn't my text is entirely unreferenced. Ifly6 (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: the topics are sufficiently different (the march is part of the war, not the same thing), so by WP:RELAR, having both pages is acceptable. The point about civil war (whilst valid, and you should make this change) is irrelevant. Godtres (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any sources showing that the march has received enough coverage to justify a separate article? Avilich (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This clearly is a WP:POVFORK (or charitably, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK). The recently created page content is heavily copied from War of Mutina. Although there is some re-arrangement of the material, it constitutes WP:COPYWITHIN, unaltered copied text being all the way through this. Yet there is no attribution, so this actually constitutes a copy-vio. The copying is not in compliance with the Wikipedia CC attribution licence. Although this could be repaired, the question is why we need this article when it is all covered in its source article. The answer is it is not. There is nothing here that is not there, and I am unconvinced by the argument that this is merely a related subject. The page is currently covering the same subject. Thus a POVFORK/REDUNDANTFORK. I also notice the references have all been copied as in text SFN citations only, and the bibliography has not been copied across. As such, this is technically unreferenced (and I am not reassured that the page creator has verified any of these references, as they have not apparently noticed this issue). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from the blatant violation of WP:CFORK and WP:COPYWITHIN and the other points raised above, there is only one paragraph actually describing the march. There is no reason why the march should be described separately from the conflict in which it took place. Avilich (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it is a clear violation of WP:CFORK, which I was not aware of when I created the article. Romulus Cyrus (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Cape Wine Masters

Institute of Cape Wine Masters (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)

Punchline is "unsalvageable promotional content". I see nothing other than self-promoting, probably paid, editing throughout the article history. There is very little that can be saved and I think it is better off deleted. MarcGarver (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last Will (film)

Last Will (film) (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:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:GNG. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and only newspaper listings on Newspapers.com. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. Per NEXIST, the sources have to be "suitable," and I don't think Horrorphilia is suitable enough. And even if it was, it's only ONE source (needs TWO OR MORE sources to pass NFO and NFSOURCES). The Film Creator (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews cited above appear to be sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have three editors !voting keep and no other !votes other than the implied delete by the nom... I'd like some more input otherwise it'll be no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but why do you say that? There is a strong consensus that films with 2 reviews are generally accepted as notable. Accordingly the nominator was asking for 1 more review at least, when 2 were presented. So saying that without more input it would close as "no consensus" does not seem correct. The nominator's rationale might (and I don't think it would) justify a "no consensus" outcome if and only if no reviews had been presented. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Count Baltar

Count Baltar (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 could not find a single decent source on the guy, let alone enough to meet WP:GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Associate international cricket in 2023#2023 Valletta Cup. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Valletta Cup

2023 Valletta Cup (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 of tournament with no reliable or independent sources to come close to passing WP:GNG or WP:CRIN. ESPN is a database, not a sign of notability. This event has pages from previous years, but all of those have at least some coverage in local media from one or more competing nations. Unfortunately this one does not (as yet) have any and hence fails WP:N and WP:RS. Bs1jac (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, as it stands, I believe the redirect to Associate international cricket in 2023 should be restored until such time that notable sources are available. I did this earlier as a non-controversial change but the redirect was removed again (in good faith) and I don't want an edit war, hence the AfD. Bs1jac (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. Star Mississippi 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Loved You

AfDs for this article:
Nobody Loved 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)

Doesn't satisfy WP:NSONG, just as it didn't satisfy it in 2015. Restore Redirect to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. Muhandes (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as explained seems ok, there appears to be no critical notice of the song otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - this single stands out as one of only 2 ever released exclusively in Japan. The discography is also incomplete without it. Also, there is an article and a discog template entry for Further Away and Life Becoming A Landside EP and these have never been nominated for deletion. So, by the same logic - both Nobody Loved You and the Know Our B-Sides EP should both be kept. This track isn't some unofficial, non-authorized 12" whitelabel, it's an officially released single - but according to some Wikipedians, it doesn't count because it was only released in Japan. Should we remove the tracklistings of the Japanese album versions because they don't count too? Finally, Wikipedia specifically aims to not solely focus on the English speaking world as reiterated in .
Finally, as per Wikipedia:Notability (music), "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.". This has been satisfied because it appears on reputable Japanese sites. Furthermore, "the recording has appeared on any country's music chart". This single has, so it has satisfied two conditions where only one is required for notability.
@Oaktree b: the Japan only single (as this is) - Further Away also has an article but has never been nominated for deletion? Apeholder (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Apeholder (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

That would help notability, if we have sourcing that talks about it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: We do, not only that but Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings states: "That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." It clearly is because we have every other one of their singles on here, but for some reason this one is different because it was released in Japan? Nobody has been able to explain this to me so far, I'm really interested to hear why it's different Apeholder (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Apeholder: This has nothing to do with Japan and everything to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Muhandes (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: It's also nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the examples given all take unrelated articles as justification for an article to stay up. The existence of Further Away shows this EXACT type of article exists already, not similar or totally unrelated as your example shows, but the EXACT same. The fact you offered this as a counter argument suggests you are either being very disingenuous or don't know the first thing about the subject matter. Also, have you noticed how I'm giving you extensive replies, and yours are pretty much one-liners with stuff that's not even relevant? So far you have said things that are clearly false and other things totally unrelated. Apeholder (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— 109.78.147.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Whether the singular !vote from the IP is included or not (as it's made few edits outside this discussion and page), there's still no consensus. Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. The first seven sources currently in the article are product and information listings. The eighth is a list of the band's best songs, but this song is not listed. The ninth is link to their Sony Music Japan biography. Plus, this single failed to chart at all. It does not merit a separate article. ✗plicit 13:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Manic Street Preachers discography#Extended plays. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Know Our B-Sides

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NALBUM, just as it didn't satisfy it in 2012, when all relevant material was merged into Manic Street Preachers discography. Restore Redirect to Manic Street Preachers discography#Extended plays. Muhandes (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - this single stands out as one of only 2 ever released exclusively in Japan. The discography is also incomplete without it. Also, there is an article and a discog template entry for Further Away as well as Life Becoming a Landslide and this has never been nominated for deletion. So, by the same logic - both Nobody Loved You and the Know Our B-Sides EP should both be kept. This track isn't some unofficial, non-authorized 12" whitelabel, it's an officially released single - but according to some Wikipedians, it doesn't count because it was only released in Japan. Should we remove the tracklistings of the Japanese album versions because they don't count too? Wikipedia specifically aims to not solely focus on the English speaking world as reiterated in . Finally, as per Wikipedia:Notability (music), "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.". This has been satisfied because it appears on reputable Japanese sites. Furthermore, "the recording has appeared on any country's music chart". This single has, so it has satisfied two conditions where only one is required for notability.
Finally, @Muhandes: stated above "...just as it didn't satisfy it in 2012, when all relevant material was merged into Manic Street Preachers discography.". Why are you making statements that aren't true? None of this article was merged into the above, other than the title of the EP and the year. Your point is null and void because it's just not true Apeholder (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Apeholder (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Apeholder: The title of the EP and the year are all the relevant material. If you find that offending, I will strike it out as it is immaterial. The material part is WP:NALBUM which is not satisfied. Muhandes (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: the title and year is clearly not enough to satisfy your "it's contained elsewhere" assertion. Where does it say that those two pieces of info are enough? This EP has satisfied various conditions of the criteria you specified Apeholder (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Apeholder: I'm not sure what you are repeating this, I stroked out that "assertion" because it is an immaterial part of the nomination. The nomination is due to WP:NALBUM not being satisfied. Show that it is satisfied by editing the article, and I will be very happy to withdraw this nomination. Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: I have read WP:NALBUM that you keep referring to: "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." By this logic, none of their singles should be included on Wikipedia. Also, I have read the First deletion discussion you referenced, but again nobody was able to describe why this article should be deleted but that the rest are notable enough to keep. One person even says "I Googled it and couldn't find much". It's a Japanese only release and Google shows you English articles! Of COURSE they wouldn't find much! There are also far more references to notability for this release than most other Manics articles. The release is notable enough to be included on WP as any others are, and it does not make sense having an incomplete discography on here because someone is being over-zealous when it comes to interpreting WP guidelines. I would love to hear an explanation. If this can be satisfied, then yes the article should be deleted.Apeholder (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Apeholder: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Muhandes (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: It's also nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the examples given all take unrelated articles as justification for an article to stay up. The existence of Further Away shows this EXACT type of article exists already, not similar or totally unrelated as your example shows, but the EXACT same. The fact you offered this as a counter argument suggests you are either being very disingenuous or don't know the first thing about the subject matter. Also, have you noticed how I'm giving you extensive replies, and yours are pretty much one-liners with stuff that's not even relevant? So far you have said things that are clearly false and other things totally unrelated.Apeholder (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— 109.78.147.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more substantive input. Previous relist failed to actually transclude this to the July 20 log so it got lost
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veejay (software)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No RS/IS/SIGCOV sources. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No significant coverage, fails GNG and NSOFT. The google search provided by Onetimememorial does not contain any news coverage of this software; the articles about VJing as a concept do not mention this program at all (at least, the ones I get back from doing that search). I've looked at the sources Siroxo provided and both appear to be broad surveys of software and not significant coverage of this program specifically. The ACM source mentions Veejay only once in passing (Outstanding packages include FLxER, FreeJ, Gephex and Veejay, all of which work with video files and streams in ways analogous to the actions of audio disc jockeys). The IEEE source's abstract suggests it's a broad survey of 150,000 open source projects, but I do not have access to the full text. If @Siroxo or anyone else can provide sections of the IEEE article that do constitute significant coverage of the program I'd reconsider. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Illumitoon Entertainment. ✗plicit 14:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Watson (producer)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No IS sources. Looks to be attempting notability via inheritance, which is not allowed. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WAsP

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No appropriate sources provided. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan Sabancı Dinçer

AfDs for this article:
Suzan Sabancı Dinçer (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 hagiography of a living person was created in 2008. Appears to be a rough translation from a language I don't speak, likely Turkish. It was AfD'ed on 28 June 2008. At that AfD, the creator said: "Keep. It is a new entry and It will be edited." Although I'm mindful that there is no deadline, I do feel it's pertinent to point out that this editor hasn't touched the article at any time in the fifteen (15) years since he made that representation. The only genuinely reliable source cited in the article is the Forbes rich list that tells us she's a billionaire from a billionaire family, and our criteria require more than one reliable source. —S Marshall T/C 09:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Limited English coverage [42]. Give it a pass based on the explanation from the Turkish language site. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the Turkish article should be sufficient to establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Wilson

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No acceptable sources. Company puff piece. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the somewhat humorous note above is from the firm's extant website [44]. —siroχo 01:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gnews has all kinds of people with this name in 19th Century newspapers, none for this fellow. Kudos on never having flown a toothbrush either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance University

Alliance 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)

Doesn't meets the WP:N criteria, the references used are also unreliable or are by the university themselves (for example their website). Ratnahastin (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on a cleanup, but it needs work from someone nearer to it who has access to sources. --Bduke (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be open source and suitably licenced for sharing. I know a lot of them do that but worth checking. scope_creepTalk 10:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any language releasing the content on their pages. Since it appears likely to be kept and this won't impact assessment here, I'm going to stub it back on those grounds. Noting here for transparency. Star Mississippi 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the ancient rev dels were not me, those had been done. I just handled what had been added this month. There seems to be some feuding in the history that I can't make heads or tails of. Star Mississippi 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayashree Patanekar

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Very poorly sourced. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Market (economics). Star Mississippi 01:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Market abolitionism

Market abolitionism (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)

Upon stumbling upon this article, the scope immediately seemed vague to me. I quickly found that many of the cited sources had nothing to do with the subject. Of the cited sources that do, they all appear to be primary sources from people directly associated with the subject. They also do not appear to actually use the term "market abolitionism" and instead offer critiques of markets, with only one passing use of the term "market abolitionist". I looked for sources on Google Scholar, but mostly found sources that appear to be completely unrelated.[45] As this article doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines, I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robin Hahnel (2007). "The Case against Markets". Journal of Economic Issues. 41 (4). Taylor & Francis: 1139–1159.
  2. ^ Adrian J. Walsh (1998). "Market Pathology and the Range of Commodity Exchange: A Preliminary Sketch". Public Affairs Quarterly. 12 (2). University of Illinois Press: 203–219.
  3. ^ Adrian Walsh; Richard Giulianotti (2006). Ethics, Money and Sport: This Sporting Mammon. Taylor & Francis. p. 19. ISBN 9781134317271.
  4. ^ Geoffrey M. Hodgson (2018). Wrong Turnings: How the Left Got Lost. University of Chicago Press. p. 194. ISBN 9780226505886.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Market (economics). My browser crashed and I lost my full source analysis but suffice it to say that the above four sources appear to invoke places where "market" and "abolition" are used in the same sentence but does not establish a body of thought known as "market abolitionism". If anything, these sources are either proposing (1) a socialist planning framework for replacing market systems, or (2) critiquing existing market systems by way of alternatives. None of these establishes "market abolitionism" as a unified body of thought but the critique can be covered as philosophical counterpoints within the existing article on economic markets. Though note that nothing in the existing article is reliably sourced for merger. czar 05:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would support a redirect. I also looked through those sources and would agree with Czar's analysis. Tbh the only one I would say includes significant coverage is Walsh & Giulianotti, but they talk about it in an almost entirely different context than this existing article. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Market (economics), per Czar. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Billy Corgan. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starchildren

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

Lack of reliable sources, no real notability. I tried redirecting to Billy Corgan as a compromise, but this was rudely reverted. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of performing an end run around deletion. Is that not rude? Rather than assume good faith, you accused me of being sneaky, which is blatantly false.
Read the articles you seem to think give this project notability; they barely mention Starchildren. How does that warrant keeping an article about a project that never did anything besides playing a few shows? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Billy Corgan - I agree with the nom that the sources being cited in the article do not count as coverage for the topic, as they barely mention it. They have no actual discussion or coverage on it, they simply have a single sentence stating that it was a side project of Billy Corgan. Searching for additional sources only turn up the same kind of coverage - single sentence mentions of the band being a very brief side project of Corgan's that released one original song. It is already listed in the infobox on Corgan's article, though a sentence or two can probably stand to be added to the body of the article mentioning it. Rorshacma (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Billy Corgan - It's true that Starchildren were mentioned in a couple of reliable publications, but as nothing but a little-known and unorganized side project. They only had two songs and three shows, and at least one of those shows was a gimmick in which some members of Smashing Pumpkins amazed the crowd by opening for themselves under a different name. This is of fancruft interest to the Smashing Pumpkins community, but there is no concrete or even encyclopedic information that can support an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Carlos Alcaraz tennis season

2022 Carlos Alcaraz tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article violates WP:NOTSTATS. Everything significant in the tables can and should be summarised, in prose, at Carlos Alcaraz. There is nothing especially notable about this season. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Spain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Number 1 players generally are eligible for these sorts of articles, I'm not sure why this would be an exception. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, zero reason to have a separate article fork. We don't have season articles for individuals in any other sports besides tennis and cricket, and given the active consensus for eliminating the latter it's clear these tenniscruft articles are unencyclopedic too. JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a huge difference betwen tennis and cricket. Cricket is a team sport and most people follow teams rather than individuals; tennis is an individual sport and fans follow their favourite players across the tour. Iffy★Chat -- 11:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have season articles for sportspeople in other individual sports either, even though every single high-profile athlete even in some team sports receives just as much or more coverage during a given season. JoelleJay (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Season articles for individual teams (eg. in Association Football) still remain. I do not think it is the most appropriate to make a comparison on that basis between team sports and individual sports, when one individual cannot necessarily influence the entire outcome of a team performance on a consistent basis. There is also a reasonable argument to be made that singles tennis is the most prominent individual sport in the world in terms of outreach and popularity. 115.66.66.93 (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only issue with the article as it stands is that the Yearly summary section has no text in it. This is an issue that can be solved by improving the article, not deleting it. Iffy★Chat -- 11:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this seems to be precisely as envisioned by WP:NOTSTATS: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. I'm not really seeing a rationale for deletion here, let alone a policy-based one. -- Visviva (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – both as a standard split off and an encyclopaedic topic that is quite easily notable. Should, however, include prose commentary on the season, but that is not a rationale for deletion. J947 † edits 11:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947, what about the rationale that IRS SIGCOV of the season as a whole has not been identified to demonstrate the topic actually passes GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: I'm not sure why coverage of the season as a whole would be necessary? It's a splitoff article from Carlos Alcaraz that can go into more detail than the main page. It's just for convenience; it is helpful but not necessary that the season is consistently discussed in itself. What matters is that across the season there is enough coverage to sustain an article. And of course there is. J947 † edits 22:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Splitting is permitted only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia. The topic does need to receive GNG coverage as any other page would. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing about notability as a whole being required. If rs A has sigcov on John Doe's tennis career, rs B has sigcov on John Doe's scientific endeavours, and rs C has sigcov on his brief acting career, and the link between these roles of John Doe is only mentioned in passing, then John Doe is notable irregardless of whether he isn't covered as a whole. Because that is the job of an encyclopaedia – to connect evidence together and provide a broad overview of a topic. There's a wealth of information to cover on Alcaraz, far too great for one article, and splitting attempts should not be thwarted by a narrow interpretation of an information page. It makes sense that his famous seasons are discussed in separate articles, and perhaps for lesser seasons cover two seasons in one article, whether or not any RS has happened to discuss "Alcaraz' 2025–26 tennis seasons". It is also quite probable that there is sigcov on this season as a whole, but that's not the question. J947 † edits 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not think it is fair to claim that there was nothing notable about this season, considering Alcaraz broke the record for the Youngest Player to ever be ranked No. 1 on the ATP rankings. He also won a grand slam. He also broke the records of the youngest player to win the Miami and Madrid Open, both of which are Masters 1000 events and are only second in prestige to the Grand Slams. Seasons like Novak Djokovic’s 2009 season and Rafael Nadal’s 2006 season also have articles but are not being considered for deletion, despite these players arguably achieving less in those respective years than Alcaraz in 2022. 115.66.66.93 (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is literally not a single source discussed here or in the article that covers his "season". Without such sources being identified there is no P&G-based rationale to keep this article. JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alcaraz's 2022 season is notable for him becoming the youngest year-end World No. 1 in the Open Era of tennis - a record that had previously been held by Lleyton Hewitt for nearly 20 years. Throughout that season, Carlos accomplished a number of other feats - such as being the youngest-ever champion of a few prestigious tournaments - which is of interest to tennis fans and students of the sport alike. If anything, I'd rather condense the corresponding section of his main Wikipedia page than get rid of this one. Chernorizets (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chernorizets, the subject still needs to meet GNG as a standalone topic. Do you have any sources of SIGCOV in independent (so not from ATP or any sports org) secondary RS on this season as a whole? I'm also curious how you arrived here with only ~115 edits... JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay I'm a big tennis fan, and in particular a fan of Carlos and his meteoric ascent to the top of men's tennis, so I noticed the deletion proposal banner on the page not long after it had been placed there. I'm going to gloss over the passive-aggressive undertones of your last sentence because, as a good friend likes to say, you do you.
    This whole discussion is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Only current, and in some cases former, world No. 1 tennis players have dedicated articles about their tennis seasons on Wikipedia. That's a tiny percentage of all the players in general, and of those for which there are articles in particular. It in no way "overburdens" the encyclopedia or detracts from its tone. Season-specific articles are of great significance for tennis fans, because they often depict historic rivalries, achievements in the sport, changing of the guard, etc. It is part of tennis culture, and some of the individual matches themselves have articles when they've reached sufficient notability.
    Even if you wanted to make a broader argument that per-season tennis player articles should not exist, or that they should be brought to a higher standard, proposing the deletion of the current world no. 1 player's historic 2022 season seems like a strangely selective, piecemeal way of going about it. Start with the players that have multiple such articles - like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic - and observe the reactions of the community. Chernorizets (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these arguments are policy- or guideline-based (and in fact are solidly WP:ATA). To have a standalone article on wikipedia, a subject must meet WP:N, and that requires SIGCOV in independent secondary RS. No one has put forward a single source meeting those criteria, let alone the multiple required. We are an encyclopedia, not a statistics directory or fandom. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article can be improved with sources, and the sources fortunately do exist. That, however, is a different conversation from "just delete it". I see no issue with adding the appropriate notices on the page that it needs to be brought up to a better standard, and in fact I've recommended as much on the Carlos Alcaraz talk page (as well as moving relevant content here). Chernorizets (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The kid won a Grandslam at 19, became world number 1 at 19 and finished year end number 1 at 19, in addition to numerous Masters 1000 wins. Definitely keep. Its the first top season of a historic tennis player

Exxcalibur808 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Anarchist Communists

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

This article has existed as a stub, without any references to reliable sources, more or less in the same form since 2005. I checked through my own sources at hand and couldn't find anything other than a single passing reference in The Continuum Companion to Anarchism. As this article appears not to meet our general notability guidelines, I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I can't access the above source, sorry. I did find some extra information in Black Flame, but it's very sparse. Summary style would say: FdCA was formed during the 1980s while many new platformist organisations were being established (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 259); it joined the International Libertarian Solidarity (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 224); it supports "historical materialism" (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 107); and it advocates "organisational dualism" (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009, p. 126). This doesn't seem like enough for an article, even a stub. -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    imo even basic stubs like that are useful, especially if the information isn't available in continuous paragraphs and is scattered through a book like the one you used to write that summary. But that's still only one source, so... -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Samajam Model School

Kerala Samajam Model 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination, concerns have been addressed and article has been improved. A hat tip to Andreas for improving the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ECONned

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

This article has existed as a stub since 2011 and in the decade since then has not had a single source added to it. Its only "reference" is a link to its store page, which makes this article look like an advertisement. It has been tagged as needing citations since 2016 and tagged for notability since 2022, but no movements to rectify these issues have been made. As such, I'm recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, with all the reviews that have been found, I think keep is the only reasonable option. Thanks to everyone who searched for these better than I did! Actualcpscm (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only find mentions in conjunction with descriptions of its author (for example, "Yves Smith, prominent blogger and author of ECONned...") I can't find any sources to support notability per WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a substantial two-page academic review by Neil Fligstein in Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 40, No. 2 (March 2011), pp. 140-142; and the book has well over 100 citations in Google Scholar. There is another three-page review here by Richard Du Boff in Monthly Review; Sep 2010; 62, 4. There is also coverage here (also published in a shorter version here, both available via WP:Library). I think it might be worth having a further look around. (The fact that the book is mentioned in a lot of author descriptions does make it hard to find sources that are about the book, but I am not sure right now that they don't exist.) --Andreas JN466 12:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Actually, refreshing my memory, WP:NBOOK only asks for two substantial reviews, and I've posted two substantial academic reviews above. In addition, there is a press review here in The Guardian, and there are assorted mentions like the one here by Glenn Greenwald. That already means it clearly meets WP:NBOOK. (The article does require some work to reflect these sources ...) --Andreas JN466 12:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NBOOK per citations listed by Andreas. Sal2100 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Primary School

Olympic Primary 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. The guardian article listed in references, is not enough for GNG and NORG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previously linked in the article: https://kenyacradle.com/olympic-primary-school/ is a wikipedia mirror, which literally copied the article to it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2015 TalkTalk data breach. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kelley (hacker)

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

Appears to be WP:BLP1E, the only news coverage relates to his 2016 arrest and sentencing. Belbury (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see support for Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2015 TalkTalk data breach, with great thanks to Actualcpscm for creating the article. The anon raises some valid points above about the breadth of the article subject's career, but I don't think we have enough material here to cover that career meaningfully beyond this one event. -- Visviva (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ and will move the film article here. Star Mississippi 01:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2001: A Space Odyssey

2001: A Space Odyssey (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)

All of the contents are (or should be) in 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), which should also be moved here. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per previous.
Godtres (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 06:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium in Eurovision Choir

Belgium in Eurovision Choir (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)

Additional articles in the same series for consideration:

Denmark in Eurovision Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Germany in Eurovision Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Latvia in Eurovision Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slovenia in Eurovision Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wales in Eurovision Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV does not appear to be met with this series of articles. All relevant information is already contained within Eurovision Choir, Eurovision Choir of the Year 2017 and Eurovision Choir 2019, and separate articles outlining specific information for each country is unnecessary. The contest is currently on permanent hiatus, meaning that opportunities to develop these articles are non-existant, and there is very limited coverage outside of the "Eurovision bubble" which would support continuing to host these articles. Additionally, previous consensus has already been reached to delete country articles for similar contests, e.g. Turkvision Song Contest (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Slovenia, and Wales. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you strip out the "origins of the event" section which is information from the main Eurovision Choir article (and is a copy/paste in each of these articles), you're left with some prose saying the country participated, a table with two lines of participants, and a second table with two lines saying who commented on the performances on tv/radio. I find the commentators in the context of Choir to be WP:CRUFT. The participants are already included in each year's article (2017 and 2019). If there were more than two contests, perhaps these pages or a "list of entries" page could be appropriate. However, it's easy to just look at each year's page to see the country in question's participant. I see little need for these pages in a practical sense. With the future of the event unlikely, a redirect to keep open the possibility of expansion seems unnecessary. Grk1011 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph René

Ralph René (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)

Self-published conspiracy theorist who fails WP:GNG. Of the sources given, two are from subject's own website, three are IMDB TV listings, and two are patent sheets. No secondary sources. Rift (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The IMDb listings are a bit misleading; I think the editor who added the citation to The Truth Behind the Moon Landings: Stranger Than Fiction intended to cite the documentary itself, not its entry on IMDb. However, René's appearance in a documentary is not independent coverage of him, and the same goes for an appearance on Penn & Teller. My BEFORE search yielded mentions in two articles, both of which appeared in numerous publications: 1 and 2. I would argue that they are both passing mentions, as neither cover René in particular detail or with any attention beyond briefly presenting his views as an example of moon landing conspiracies. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reading the article, it's clear that almost the entire thing is based on the subject's self-promotion. Sources confirm does not meet WP:BASIC —siroχo 11:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They placed a reflector on the moon, and we have photos from orbit of the landing sites. This appears PROMO, but he's been deceased for over a decade now, may he rest in peace. I see no sourcing we can use, beyond proof he was on TV a few times. Heck, I've been on TV. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I very much agree that the moon landing was not staged, I don‘t think that directly affects notability of this individual. You know, even if it turned out that the moon isn‘t real, that wouldn‘t make them notable. I guess.[FBDB] Actualcpscm (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting for lack of any coverage in RS is the reason. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to E. C. Stearns & Company. As an aside, for the closer's sake, please provide a link to the Merge or Redirect target you are proposing. Yes, I can go look for it, which is what I did, but there is always the possibility that I find a different page that the one participants are desiring. It's also faster if you just provide a link to the target you are arguing for. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avis Stearns Van Wagenen

Avis Stearns Van Wagenen (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:BIO: no sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Stearns company article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OrSiSo

OrSiSo (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)

Routine news articles. The company doesn't have the significant coverage required according to WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Moving to Draft‎. There is a tending consensus to delete and certainly a clear one that the information as it stands is unsuited to mainspace. There is also a clear strand that it's possible to reorganise this content into something manageable and useful. With that in mind it's better to just shift to draft to allow further discussion and agreement to arise without the sword of Damocles hanging over the conversation. Spartaz Humbug! 20:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of proteins in the human body

List of proteins in the human body (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 list with potentially 10k entries can effectively be curated (or even displayed) in this format. We have Category:Human proteins, which should serve for navigation purposes. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: please see comment by Boghog, added after most other comments. This points to the existence of List of human protein-coding genes 1, List of human protein-coding genes 2, List of human protein-coding genes 3, and List of human protein-coding genes 4, which I was not aware of. I suggest the concern about effective duplication is justified. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list may not need 10K entries; the category has 914 pages, but I think it would be difficult to maintain such a large, indiscriminate list of proteins. Perhaps a redirect could be considered. Enervation (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or draftify Brand new article (less than 1 day old at time of nom, WP:BEFORE.C.2). Meets WP:NLIST. Lets allow the creator and other editors time to work to refine it and let the inclusion criteria and organization firm up before bringing it here. —siroχo 07:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better as a category, a list would be simply unmanageable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A category just seems harder to export to SQL or a format which can easily be compared with other online databases no? it makes the automization of the maintaince work a lot harder. Or maybe there is a good way to export categories which I have not seen yet? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but modify: this seems like a very useful list. However, there will be too many proteins, so the article's lede should say "notable" proteins and the list should only contain proteins which are somewhat notable, i.e., they have been frequently discussed in science or news, or they have a substantial or interesting effect on a notable and relevant phenotype. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a solution could also just be to make the table collapsable?(if you go to the Statistics section of COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory or List of skeletal muscles of the human body you can see examples of this )so that it does not take up so much space, and then make a column makring if proteins are notable, then define a criteria for when they are notable, in that way the list could quickly be sorted. and one could easily and quickly get the proteins that one need and export them to excel or whatever other format one might need? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could the list be divided either alphabetically or functionally to make it more manageable? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is indeed precedent for dividing lists alphabetically / lexicographically. List of lists of lists is my favorite starting point for finding examples of good lists. —siroχo 08:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean it is a sortable table, so if you clock the two arrows next to the name in the table you will have it sorted alphabetically. But you could also do the same with the Cell cloumn or any of the other column in this way there is flexibility on how you sort the proteins. You can sort them according to any parameter which have been entered for all proteins: Is this helpful? or did I misunderstand the question? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is fundamentally misconceived. There's an old and longstanding consensus that in all cases where we can have a category, we can and should have a navigational list; it's all set out with reasons at WP:CLN (and more specifically at WP:NOTDUP).—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am sure that it feels mighty satisfying to make these stentorian pronouncements, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species described in 2022 for a directly parallel case that, yes, was based on the problem of excessive number of entires. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't always remember our guidelines, or follow them. But that doesn't mean the guidelines don't count.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I have to point out to a long-term contributor that desirables must be balanced against others (such as, having list-form material to parallel category-form, vs not throwing thousands of entries into an uncuratable list)? Would be nice if one could just throw references to The Only Applicable Rule into all these AfDs, eh... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Isen't the point of having an online encyplopedia that you can have lists longer then you can in a physical one? it is just a question of how we can make it easy enough for everyone to navigate no? what can we do to make the table more intuative to use for people who don't work with large datasets on a daily basis - I think this is the exciting thing about these sortable tables it can let the common man see all the concerete emperical data which is way to often hidden behind abstraction, and it allows him to answer a lot of questions that other may not have asked. In this way it is not only people who can Code SQL who can ask the questions or understand what is already known - or am I getting of the discourse? - I feel like if categories are as easy for everyone to sort and export to homemade code which be used to check and compare. We could just as well use a category. But when I see a category I do not have the overview over which instances in it is lacking what information nor how I would sort it according to anything which is not just alabeth sort of its name? but maybe there is a good way to do this? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important medical topic. Okoslavia (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    <3 Agreed, I feel like List of skeletal muscles of the human body it makes a lot easier to visualize just how many elements there is to it, and how much of the statements that people come with about the number of proteins are estimates vs. actual observation. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not a medical topic, it's biochemistry. With this level of understanding, it's baffling how you even are able to assess its importance. — kashmīrī TALK 15:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to category for easier navigation. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it that makes categories easier to navitage? Maybe we can implement something simmilar here, so that it becomes just as easy? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or draftify and advise author to produce a curated list of notable human proteins (per Siroxo and Chamaemelum). This will be a useful list with care and attention, and can improve the Category:Human proteins with the removal of obvious errors (like the inclusion of Acalabrutinib) or adding omitted proteins. ― Synpath 17:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is some great idear, do you have the time and energy to help me do it? where can one find a good description of 'per Siroxo and Chamaemelum' I think a key lacking eliment of the category is also the naming convention for each entry. I made one here, but it is not very good yet. It still need a lot of work before it makes sense to implement it regitly on all the proteins. But I think it is still better to have a page where it is clear that no clear naming convention have been implemented yet. Then one that implies it, without having it? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being too long is never a valid reason to delete it. List that do get long are broken into sublist. This list only shows entries that have their own Wikipedia article. The list offers more information than a category could, thus aids in navigation, helping find what they are looking for easier. A valid information list as well. Dream Focus 18:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also what I have tried to formulate with concrete examples as replies to the others. If there is something which categories have which we lack here, I am sure we can find a good way to implement it :) Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per S Marshall's take on CLN. If it becomes too long, we can make it a list of lists, but this is precisely the sort of navigational list Wikipedia should have and organize and update in a manner a dead tree encyclopedia cannot. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. While all 10,000 human proteins are probably not notable, the scope of this list as currently scoped will run to several thousand items, which is not practical for a list article, as the nominator observed. (See, e.g., WP:SALAT.) It's not immediately obvious to me how to subdivide it into manageably-sized lists, but we should deal with that now rather than years later. To add to the precedential example of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species described in 2022, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of blast furnaces for another recent deletion of an over-broadly scoped list. Choess (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if the people who first sad down to make a list of all human muscles on paper felt the same? could we try and take inspiration from how they solved it here? and would the list even have to be subdivided if everyone just sort the list according to what they are looking for? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those examples are not valid in this case. There was nothing that made blast furnaces notable, there no articles for just them, but instead things on that list linked to businesses that had them among their holdings, without mentioning anything about the blast furnaces themselves. The proteins in the human body are notable, mentioned in textbooks and other scholarly publications, any new one discovered covered in science news sources, and some have their own articles dedicated to them. Dream Focus 14:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I follow, isen't there: List of skeletal muscles of the human body Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and Do not categorify. The list length is unmanageable, and it serves no navigational purpose. No one is going to want to browse some list of 2000 entries, most with obscure names. Converting to a category is probably worse in this case. Many (if not most) of these are also present in other animals besides humans, and thus this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. It also opens the floodgates for thousands of similar categories of proteins in other animals and plants. Additionally, having this as a category requires keeping track of the categories on every such article, rather than simply keeping a central list (which, just to be clear, I still think is useless). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But we also have a list of List of skeletal muscles of the human body , List of bones of the human skeleton, List of distinct cell types in the adult human body , List of human microbiota. Even though there is animals out there with the same bacteria, simmilar muscles and bones and very simmilar cells. There is still a very strong criteria for when one cannot add something to the list, when it is not in humans. So it is still a very exclusive definition. the argument ' having this as a category requires keeping track of the categories on every such article, rather than simply keeping a central list' I find good. I think the use is also visualising all the building blocks of a human and all the places where something can break, and how to detect when something is broken based on how it looks in most other human. A lot of databases exist on this matter(see the list of databases in the end of the article). So clearly it have priority to a lot of people with resources. But all of them or hard to access, and thereby also hard to scrutinize and update. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the list of proteins in the human body would be very similar to proteins in mammals, and most on the list will be common to all animals. It would be nice to have, but the list will be too long. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How long? List of minor planets has 700,000 entries.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. I was not aware of that monster. Well, at least those should be pretty stable entries... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would you like to help make these entries more stable? :) Claes Lindhardt (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another set of gene/protein lists that are maintained by User:Seppi333Bot:
    For a more comprehensive list, see List of human protein-coding genes 1, List of human protein-coding genes 2, List of human protein-coding genes 3, and List of human protein-coding genes 4.
    Boghog (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmanageably large and duplicative of other lists per Boghog. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this add a new argument or angle different from the one posted by Graeme Bartlett or would the List of minor planets with 700 000 entries also here suggest that it could make sense to do? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, Mr Lindhardt, replying to everyone is rude. The closer will know whether this is a point that's been dealt with earlier in the debate. They don't need to see the same replies repeated.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I am terribly sorry if I have approched it wrong. How can I be polite and still make everyone feel like the have been heard and thier arguments addressed? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you don't; it's not needful. At the end of the debate, a closer will come along and summarise the points that everyone's made, the rebuttals to them, and how these interact with policy. It's the closer's job to make sure everyone feels heard. We have a whole separate place for analysing how deletion debates are closed, if the details interest you?—S Marshall T/C 14:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly on categories: many of our readers do not use or understand categories, so they are not a golden-bullet alternative to difficult, long lists. Secondly on size: we can't just abandon having information on anything "big", we just need to find ways to handle big lists, for example by subdividing, which is definitely possible, see the human proteome ref below. Thirdly on duplication: genes are not proteins. There is a subtle difference! Fourthly on databasing and relevance of this list: there are online databases of proteins, e.g. the human protein atlas [47], but these do not provide navigation to Wikipedia articles on proteins. Such sites indicate that it is possible to subdivide and present information in a public-friendly way, despite the sheer size of the problem. We are here to help readers find out about stuff. Learning about human proteins is a very obvious encyclopaedic need for kids, teenagers, and interested adults. It's what we're here to do. Why on earth wouldn't we attempt to provide a list, no matter how incomplete, to help our readers appreciate the range of proteins that exist, and find our individual articles on those that are most notable? Elemimele (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... a post-script: this list does not overlap with the numbered lists of human protein-encoding genes; those lists give only the gene's symbol and ID, which are as useful as a chocolate teapot to a schoolkid searching for the proteins that are found in the human heart (a reasonable question to bring to an encyclopaedia). Elemimele (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The target articles in both lists are about the gene and the protein encoded by that gene. Hence the scope of both lists include both topics and hence the two lists are in fact duplicates. (There are a few genes that have seperate protein protein articles, but these are rare. The vast majority of protein articles also cover the gene.) In addition, It is impractical to manually create and maintain a list of 12,000 Gene Wiki articles. The list of human protein-coding gene series was created and maintained by a bot (User:Seppi333Bot written by User:Seppi333) and is currently up-to-date. Why reinvent the wheel? In the List of human protein-coding genes 1 series, there is a UniProt column, so it already includes explicit information about the protein. Perhaps what should be done is to selectively merge columns from the List of proteins in the human body into the List of human protein-coding genes 1 series. Boghog (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I wanted to include more data in those tables, but I didn't really have much support at the time I submitted my bot request. The current list uses like 10% of the available column data from the source data file. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give one simple example. So I'm a school-kid and interested in what human proteins handle alcohol. With the current list of proteins, I can open the article in my browser, click "find on page" and type alcohol, and I immediately find the NAD- and NADP-linked alcohol dehydrogenases, and can navigate to the articles on both enzymes. No offence to the list of human protein-coding genes 1 etc. series, but I can't for the life of me work out how to search that for enzymes that use alcohol. We are here to serve real information to normal people with rational questions, not to debate whether the inclusion of a uniprot id technically means that our school-kid ought to be find alcohol dehydrogenase; I'd be interested to see how many real school kids manage that feat. Elemimele (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A school kid is going to go to a list of proteins to find out what protein metabolizes ethanol? Highly unlikely. Far more likely the student would first search for Alcohol_(drug) and then find links to alcohol dehydrogenase. Boghog (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if 'A school kid is going to go to a list of proteins to find out what protein metabolizes ethanol' is unlikely right now, don't we want to live in a future where it is likely and doable? I also don't think your avg. western 7-8 grader(sorry but I am mostly fammiliar with western school systems) would use the term metabolizes but he might be able to get the same understanding with the words handles or uses. I could also well imagine someone in the start of gymnasium, secondary school or high school had such questions before reaching university. Or simply youngsters interested in the STEM subject Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a good video on how to get started with wikibots somewhere? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Claes Lindhardt: I think most Wikipedia bots are programmed with WP:Pywikibot; it's the bot library I use at least. It's fairly easy to figure out how to use this library provided that you are somewhat familiar with programming in Python. You don't need to be an expert programmer to write a Wikipedia bot. Frankly, I used a few python libraries I'd never used before in my python script that creates the bot-generated lists, one of which was Pywikibot. So, I learned as I went (NB: it was the first data pipeline I ever programmed), but it wasn't terribly difficult to figure out based on my previous experience with programming in Python. If you take a course on Python programming that teaches you the basics of the language and perhaps gives you some hands-on experience programming stuff (e.g., applied coursework), you should know enough to start programming Pywikibot scripts that perform basic tasks. With a little more hands-on experience (i.e., maybe a few months of programming stuff in Python), it probably wouldn't be difficult for you to read and understand the Python script I wrote that generates the lists of human protein-coding genes, and potentially modify it for your own purposes (NB: if you can read and understand source code in a programming language, repeatedly modifying it and comparing the output you receive to what you intend is a decent way of learning on the fly; at least, it's what I do anyway: build stuff and learn as I go). Hope that helps. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very helpful, thank you :) Claes Lindhardt (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List of proteins in the human body" was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2023. On 19 July 2023 (DURING THIS ONGOING DELETION DISCUSSION), User:Claes Lindhardt created 229 links to it (in hatnotes incorrectly formatted without the {See also} template). (I don't know how that figures into the merits of the article.) -A876 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry my bad, I am new to creating and linking articles. But I will do my best to use the {See also} when I link to it in the future. thank you for the input. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing a clear cut consensus here, and the discussion seems to still be going. Relisting for more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge into List of human protein-coding genes 1, List of human protein-coding genes 2, List of human protein-coding genes 3, or List of human protein-coding genes 4. Both sets of lists concern the gene and the protein encoded by the gene. Maintaining these two sets of lists is redundant. Boghog (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your second !vote in this debate, Boghog. Do you retract your first one? We normally allow some redundancy in navigational lists, because they're there to help people find content. For example we have a List of dinosaurs and a List of African dinosaurs. All the species in the African list are also in the main list, but the African list isn't useless. Can you see why?—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your right about the double vote. Sorry about that. I changed my first vote to a comment. As with List of dinosaurs, there are numerous categories, lists, and navoboxes of specific gene/protein families and I agree with you that these subdivisions are useful. But each of these lists point to articles (with relatively few execeptions) whose scope is the gene and the protein encoded by that gene. Proteins and genes are of course distinct topics. However when discussing an individual protein, it is so highly interelated with the gene that encodes it, it makes sense to have a single article that discusses both. Furthermore the infoboxes that are contained in these articles almost always contain information about the gene and protein (see {{infobox gene}}, {{infobox protein}}, note that the names of these infoboxes is somewhat missleading, both infoboxes include information about the gene and the protein). Boghog (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way in which we could make the names of these infoboxes less missleading? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boghog: After looking through the headers/data in the source data file my bot uses and comparing it to the List of proteins in the human body page, I could fairly easily incorporate all the information on protein name(s)/alias(s) [2 options] and EC numbers (for proteins that are enzymes) that are in the current list. I could also add the gene location as well as an IUPHAR link and orphanet link(s) to any associated gene/protein pages in those databases for pharmacology data and clinical information on associated rare diseases for each gene/protein. I can't merge in protein classification or function information without performing some computational gymnastics: I'd need to download a dataset from a protein database, match the identifiers for all entries in the HGNC database, and pull protein classification & function data from the second file. It's entirely within my skillset to do that, and it's probably feasible to merge in protein classification data (provided that I can find a suitable database for this); however, adding protein function information would likely significantly increase the lists' page sizes due to the amount of text that I expect will be added to each entry. Protein function information is seldom concise (e.g., pick an arbitrary UNIPROT page on a human protein and read the function field). On the other hand, the lists' page sizes don't seem like a particularly notable issue now compared to when my bot was approved since they're not even listed on Special:LongPages anymore. That being said, I think I'd need to raise this issue with User:Primefac (please correct me if I'm wrong) before making significant changes like this to my bot's source code, per the original approval discussion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seppi333: Thanks for your willingness to modify your bot to include additional columns in your gene/protein lists. It would be desirable to also include function. In princple, this could be extracted from WikiData with a Python API. There is a WikiData property for molecular function (P680) which has already been populated for all human proteins. For example, one can search for human proteins with nuclear receptor activity
    molecular function (P680) = nuclear receptor activity (Q14872989)
    found in taxon (P703) = nuclear receptor activity (Q14872989)
    To get a list of human nuclear receptors: query
    I am not sure how much work this would be to write a subrouitine to return a list of Gene Wiki articles and their associated molecular function(s), but I am willing to help. Boghog (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If Wikidata by itself is sufficient for filling in the missing gene data from the HGNC dataset, then it should be easy enough to match the identifiers between the dataset and Wikidata since they should both have assigned gene symbols and HGNC IDs. Haven't looked at the wikidata API, but so long as there's a means to batch-download all the data - or just specific statements - from thousands of WD entries simultaneously, then everything else should be pretty straightforward to program. Would just merge the datasets on unique identifiers present in both (HGNC ID would probably be the safest option if those numbers are static) by appending the wikidata column data to the end of the HGNC data file. This modified bot script would still work normally and generate the same wikitables as the current bot script from this merged dataset as it does from the current HGNC dataset. So, all I'd need to do to add the 2 wikidata columns is add 2 more wikitable columns for that data in the function that generates the wikitables. That's simple enough to do, so I'd just need to make sure the wikidata API has the functionality to give me what I need; might be prudent to wait to see if the consensus leans toward a merger before ironing out the rest of the software design, though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally we would then also merge the articles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteins_produced_and_secreted_by_the_liver , (Category:Human proteins, List of proteins, List of enzymes, Transporter Classification Database and Index of protein-related articles I feel like a lot of these articles hinges on some of the same questions? Maybe we could even have column of which cells produces the proteins link to: List of distinct cell types in the adult human body? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) database already contains a list of ALL confirmed human genes and through its UniProt link, all confirmed human proteins. UniProt also keeps track of cleavage products from the original transcribed protein (see for example P02775). The HGNC/UniProt list is complete so there is no reason to merge various protein family lists. The issue of cell types/tissue distribution gets messy. One can infere this by message (mRNA expression) or protein product (immunohistochemistry). UniProt has links to expression databases. The Human Protein Atlas is another possibility. However the more I think about this, the less feasible I think this would be to incorporate in a concise way. Boghog (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also if we merge the articles it is important that we have a heading like 'Naming Convention for the list', because I think if you do not have a wiki profile and don't go to the talk page, and you are trying to navigate what article is about what. Or if you are new and trying to figure out where you can add what information or if something seems off, it is just impossible. Non of the above mentioned lists, categories or articles really have that(if I missed it please let me know), and it makes the job of comparing them much greater. The job of validating weather the lists are consistant with thier own defintions is also much bigger when it is unclear excatly what the defintions that have been agreed upon so far is.
    If they are merged I would also really like to keep 'List of databases containing Human Proteins', to clarify where the data is coming from and maintain a high level of transparrency. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem with that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Boghog or Delete - assuming it would eventually become a complete list, it doesn't seem feasible to manually maintain up-to-date information on 20,000-100,000 proteins. Even the names of genes/proteins change more frequently than one might expect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But would it have to happen manually? isen't there ways in which we could automate bits and piaces of it? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seppi333 I think the work you have done already is amazing, and it would make sense to put in efforts to build on top of that.
    We should however not remove this page, before the columns and so have been added on your original article. There is still a bit of way before the average person can really benefit fully from it. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Claes Lindhardt: See below for my justification. I also described a few issues you'll encounter based on my experience, provided the consensus is keep and you decide to expand it manually. In the event a merge is the consensus, it shouldn't take more than a few hours (days, if I'm busy off-wiki) to update the source code to include data on all the protein names, ec numbers, protein classifications, and protein functions from the databases Boghog and I discussed. I would assume this list page would continue to exist until those updates are published.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seem to be two main categories of ATD right now.
  1. There's the human curated list option, which would seem to require a tighter inclusion criteria (not necessarily as part of this discussion)
  2. There's a bot option, which right now hinges on a merge.
One thought: why not both? Doing both takes the pressure off the curated list to be large, meaning we can have a very restrictive inclusion criteria. And we take the pressure of the large bot list to be in-depth, and it can act mostly as a navigational aid with whatever extra data it can easily include.
—siroχo 04:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: Yes, completely! Having a manual list also gives us a way to deal with problems like Calcitonin, which is one of the two different peptides encoded via alternative splicing by the gene CALCA. At the moment we cover the other product in Calcitonin gene-related peptide which also deals with the product of a second gene CALCB. The point is that there isn't a 1:1:1 relationship between genes, proteins, and wikipedia articles, so while I applaud Seppi333's excellent efforts and want those lists kept, it's great to have both a manually-curated, selective navigational list, and a complete, bot-generated database-list of genes. Elemimele (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elemimele (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a silly question, but when a list is bot currates can no manual changes be made to it? or is it also possible to make manual changes to a bot curated list? in my head an ideal case senario would be that I could start at List of organs of the human body and then see all the proteins required to build each organ as well as what they do, and how they interplay. Or I could start at the bottom Composition of the human body and then see each protein is build from those basic building blocks. The list of proteins is kind of that middle step which could bind all the different levels of building blocks in the human body togehter Claes Lindhardt (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Claes Lindhardt: The manual changes remain in effect until the next time the bot is run. A bot-updated list generally obviates the need for anyone to edit the list except to retarget dablinks. I don't know if any other bot-generated lists exist, but the way I handle list edits outside of dablink retargets is to ask people to propose them on the talk page via editnotices and - for those who ignore the editnotices - incorporate manual edits that were introduced since my bot's last edit into its source code, provided that it was a useful edit.
@Siroxo and Elemimele: May be worth reading my response to Claes in the collapse tab above as to why I think a manually-updated list on this topic is a bad idea. If you want an idea of how frequently changes are made to the underlying data in the list I maintain, look at how regularly the list navbox indices change across the page revisions. The bot script doesn't change; it's removals/additions/renamings of genes in the underlying dataset that causes that. It'll be much worse with a list 5x longer than mine.
Also, @Elemimele: I'm just responding to what you said below here: merging the data from the current list page into mine is entirely feasible. I wouldn't be merging the actual data in this list - most of it is actually empty cells anyway; we're just merging in the column headers and populating the corresponding data for each list entry from the primary and a secondary database. As described in my discussion with Boghog, we'd use some of the existing data in the source file I currently use and merge in some of the missing column data from a second database with complete information for all human protein-coding gene list entries. It should be fairly simple to revise my bot's source code to include complete information on the protein name, ec numbers (if applicable), protein classification, and protein function for all ~20000 genes in the list my bot maintains.
Lastly, I welcome any hardcore deletionists to try to get my bot's lists deleted; I wouldn't have had a chance of getting my bot approved if I didn't know the relevant MOS and content guideline pages pertaining to my lists backward and forwards; in fact, I cited them at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Seppi333Bot & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of human protein-coding genes 1. I thanked the first guy who nominated my list for deletion in the request for approval since he unwittingly helped me quickly generate consensus by doing so. I'd laugh at the futility if someone wants to go round 2, though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. There is so much wrong with this article it is hard to know where to begin, other than by noting that the objections to it already made above by other editors are mostly valid. The best one can say of it is that it is a rough draft of something that could be made useful with a huge amount of work. First all, it is misnamed: it is not a list of proteins, but mainly a list of genes with the sort of meaningless names that geneticists seem to like. As the first of a huge number of examples, ACAD10 is not a protein; it is a gene coding for Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase family, member 10. If you want to continue pretending this is a list of proteins you need to replace all of these gene names with names of proteins. It's as if the List of presidents of the United States didn't bother to give their names but expected you to click on the number in the left-hand column: that will tell you, so what more do you want? Then, for A4GALT (Lactosylceramide 4-α-galactosyltransferase) we find enzyme(EC number?). However, the EC number is right there in the linked article (2.4.1.228), so does (EC number?) just mean "I suppose this enzyme has an EC number, but if you want to know what it is you need to look it up, because I can't be bothered"? For ACOT6 we don't even get that snippet of information. The order is sort of alphabetical, but the article creator didn't bother to apply a system consistently. Thus we have Tubulin before B3GALNT2. Collagen, the most abundant protein in the body, rolls in at No. 253, with no indication of what it is and what it does. Phosphofructokinase, a protein everyone has heard of, is No. 1731. Just above it there is Hexokinase, with no indication that humans have four isoenzymes with different genes. Then at 1805 we find Cooperativity, which is neither a protein nor a gene. Athel cb (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you that is some very good input. Do you think these problems apply to all of: Category:Human proteins, List of proteins, List of enzymes, Transporter Classification Database and Index of protein-related articles ? and is thus symptomatic of the wiki community as a whole around this topic or do you think it is just this list/article? I am very open to trying to replace all of the gene name with protein names. How can we try to assure that we do not make the same mistake again before we try to replace all the names?
    The reason that the EC number is there is so that you can sort the list according to EC number if you wish. Most of the information in the different columns of the list can also be found in the article. But it is hard to compare so many articles and porteins if not on a table form somehow. (Here I think it is important to remeber that the point of the column is not just an EC number, but a type of protein so it could also be a TC number.)
    I am not sure what you mean by snippet of information in ' For ACOT6 we don't even get that snippet of information.' please elaborate?
    For the earlier examples you at least tell us that you think EC numbers may exist (though you don't say what they are). For ACOT6 (and others) all we get is a link to a general article about enzymes, though one can probably assume that anyone perusing the list is already familiar with the idea of an enzyme. Adding enzyme serves no purpose. Athel cb (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And no nothing is really consistent yet, I can make it clear in the beginning of the article text if you want. But if you click the arrows on the top of the table in the name column you get it sorted in alphabetical order. The whole idear with a sortable table is that you can choose what column you sort based on. I wanted to add all the things already on wikipedia before I started implementing the things from the naming convention strictly(and Ideally also settle on a universially applicable naming convention) before doing that.
    About Collagen, I thought about this myself, and considered adding a column that somehow indicates how present it is in the human body either % of bodyweight or % in number of proteins present in the human body. But I failed to find any databases with extensive accessible data on this for a large number of proteins if you know any, please link it. Then we can add a such column :)
    When you say that Phosphofructokinase is a protein that everyone have heard of, why is it that everyone have heard of it? is it because of its function? Maybe it pops out on a certain parameter from which one could resort the list so that it would pop out in the top rows?
    Why do you think that everyone has heard of phosphofructokinase whereas only a tiny minority of people have heard of 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1? Athel cb (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be a good way to make an indication that Hexokinase have four isoenzymes, linking it to 4 EC numbers?
    It's not the only one that exists as isoenzymes. You need to check for all the others. It doesn't have four EC numbers, they're all the same, but there are four different proteins. Athel cb (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will remove Cooperativity
    So you should, and you should search for other similar examples, such as Base excision repair, Bump and hole Athel cb (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regular insulin is not a protein in the human body (unless it's been injected). There are probably other similar examples. Athel cb (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Major histocompatibility complex is a locus, not a protein. Athel cb (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Histones clumps together several different important proteins that are different from one another. Athel cb (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is still a lot of work to do, no doubt. But I feel it could be worth doing and that a lot of these issues does not only apply to this article/list but to how we go about Proteins(especially in the Human body) on wikipedia in general, and an article/list. Might be a part of the solution.
    There is a tremendous amount of work to do, and you seem to have posted the article without doing more than about 5% of it. Unfortunately there is little reason to think you have the knowledge of proteins and biochemistry in general to do this. Athel cb (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of these issues are onces that everyone will face trying to answer protein questions with wiki, yet it is unclear how apperend they are to us as a community?
    I highly appriciate that you took the time to look at the list, and hope to get more good feedback :) Claes Lindhardt (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Woulden't it make sense to have a column for all the non human speices that each protein occurs in. So that researchers looking for animal models could use it to find potential matches?
  • Comment is there a more intuitive way to make clear or visualize how much have been mapped vs. How much there is left to map? Like how many proteins are listed here vs. how many we think there is vs. how many have been observed and described
  • Comment I am highly concerned that the creator of this page is now going on a crusade to add "See also: List of proteins in the human body to the beginning of every single entry in the list, which I think is highly inappropriate. GraziePrego (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I've mass reverted them now. — kashmīrī TALK 14:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did the same thing List of distinct cell types in the adult human body, did I break some guidline here as well? and what guideline is it that this is against? and how does it contribute negativly to this discussion or the state of proteins on wiki? Would it be better if I digged out the creater of each article on the list and wrote on thier talk page? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a deletion discussion, it would be helpful for everyone if you did not reply under every comment here, especially with matters unrelated to this deletion discussion. Feel free to ask at Talk of the said article. — kashmīrī TALK 15:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I started to do the same thing, but I decided that there were more urgent things to do, so I left it for later. Athel cb (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also concerned this whole debate is going off the rails, and it would certainly be useful to sort out the fate of this list before adding more links to it. On the subject of the current list being in a bad state, Athel cb, are you in favour of a terminal-for-ever delete on the grounds that the subject is non-encyclopaedic? Or a TNT delete on the grounds that it might be possible to handle the subject but the current article is so bad a starting point that one might as well start over?
    The present article is in such poor shape that I can't see how it could be salvaged without scrapping it and starting again. If someone who understands the difference between genes and proteins, and in general has a good knowledge of biochemistry (qualifications that are not evident at the moment), wants to create a new article that does it properly, then OK. Athel cb (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should clarify, I think the concept of a list of proteins in the human body for which we have Wikipedia articles is a very valid subject for a navigational list article. I am not wedded to the current list.
    @GraziePrego:, I don't think extra columns for non-human species would work, because there are too many species.
    A comment on the various suggestions to merge to Seppi333's list, this is probably technically completely impossible. If a list is maintained by a bot, how is it going to handle introduction of human-written material? Also the bot-maintained list is a blatant (but in my view useful!) violation of WP:NOTDATABASE so it's on thin ice itself. If we merge the material there, it might well get deleted as soon as a hard-core deletionist notices the whole thing doesn't fit WP's policies. Elemimele (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So how would one go about creating a list that does not run into the problems that this one have run into? is there a way of creating a template or a framework for a such list? I am very open to the idear of starting over, but if we do not come up with a concrete framework for how, I fear we might just have this dicussion all over on the new article/list once again? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would also be really nice if someone could make a list of all the problems with this list which seems unsolvable and one with the ones that seems solvable. So that we could starty by trying to address the solvable onces, before we started over. and then could have a discussion on how making a new list solves the problem that seems unsolvable here Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, would you kindly stop hijacking every single comment in this discussion? — kashmīrī TALK 15:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    kashmiri, I hope you weren't referring to me, as I've written quite a bit here too. If so, I apologise. I don't want to do a take-over of this discussion. But I do think Claes Lindhardt's question is worth an answer. (1) The current table is a mess because it contains a hotch-potch mix of genes and proteins. The two are different. If this is to be truly a list of proteins, it should contain only proteins (2) It's got a rather arbitrary collection of extra columns, some of which is going to be hard to reference; the first row illustrates the problem, where an enzyme is described as a fibrous protein, and we have a "function" column that can't say anything because if you go to the article about this protein, it starts by saying the physiological function is unclear; (3) the associated introductory text clearly implies that the ideal here would be a complete, database-like list, but since it's manually compiled, it's not likely to become complete. Those who want a database will be disappointed because it doesn't compare well to seppi's gene database; those who want an encyclopaedia-style navigational list with some introductory text will also be disappointed because it's not a great navigational aid in its current form. Elemimele (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Elemimele, apologies for not tagging the editor – I meant Claes Lindhardt, not you, as your comments here have obviously been very helpful. — kashmīrī TALK 09:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy/Draftify. The article in its current shape is absolutely unsuitable for mainspace (vide the issues brought up by others above), even as I see a potential for such a topic to be useful when developed properly, both content- and presentation-wise. Currently, neither content nor presentation is to a minimum acceptable quality. — kashmīrī TALK 09:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for several reasons. First, it does not do anything better than a category does, and should remain a category. Second, the lists List of human protein-coding genes 1, List of human protein-coding genes 2, List of human protein-coding genes 3, and List of human protein-coding genes 4 already exist, and this list as it currently exists is treading the same ground over again. Third, this page is contaminated with entries that are not from humans, not proteins, and some neither human nor proteins. Fourth, it is not useful to navigate- to find a particular protein of interest, someone has to search the giant list. That's what Wikipedia is for- they can just type the protein name into the search bar at the top instead of looking at a list that just contains much less information. Overall this page would be need an absolutely staggering amount of work to contain what it intends to contain, and I believe even that will not serve any significant purpose. GraziePrego (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm becoming concerned that this AfD discussion is a the tip of an iceberg. Our current handling of proteins at a high level is awful. We have nice individual articles on individual proteins, and we have a handful of rather good navigational articles dealing with very small categories, such as Peptide hormone. This is a superb little article, exactly what any non-expert will need if they suddenly see the term in a book or newspaper and want to know more. But please take a look at List of types of proteins. If you feel that the current article has problems, the list of types of proteins is atrocious beyond wildest imagination, a collection of random unassigned quotes often on things that are just general cell biology with little special relevance to proteins (the cytosol is in the list of types of protein). It links to the marginally better List of proteins and List of enzymes but these are also both in a very sorry state. I wonder if we need a much broader delete-and-rethink on this. I will nominate list of types of proteins as it's a TNT case. Seppi's list is at least professional and in good condition. Is there anything that can be done to make the subject of human (and other) proteins accessible to the non-expert who isn't already familiar with the various gene database ID's etc.? Can we give the non-expert reader some sort of meaningful overview? How do we go about doing so? Elemimele (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the use case for finding proteins by searching through giantic lists? I think GraziePrego point above is worth repeating Fourth, it [a list] is not useful to navigate- to find a particular protein of interest. Far more practical is to use the Wikipedia search bar or Google that frequently places a link to the relevant Wikipeida article at the top of the search results. The list examples given above I think are illustrative. Small lists tend to work much better than long lists. The problem with List of types of proteins is there are many ways to classify proteins. By structure, by function, by cellular location, by tissue expression, by organism, etc. I do think that List of types of proteins is overly complex and could be signficantly simplified to focus on the big picture. Also {{Protein topics}} that is at the bottom of List of types of proteins needs to be cleaned up. Finally there is partial overlap with List of proteins. I will work on these as I find time. Boghog (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boghog: Good question. I think a list is useful in navigation when it has a definite scope, and when the reader will not necessarily know the name of the protein for which they are searching. A perfect example is the Peptide hormone list that I mentioned above. It is quite likely that someone will be looking for human hormones, and will know that some are peptides, maybe know the names of one or two, and be wondering what others exist. Yes, categories are another way to do the job, but since a lot of readers don't really understand how categories work, these targeted list articles have value.

    I personally favour a two-pronged approach: (1) Seppi-style all-inclusive lists for the "pro" reader; (2) A hierarchy of (incomplete) navigational lists to help the general reader. List of types of proteins would work better if it were simply a list of other lists-and-articles. For example, it could point the reader at Enzyme (as an article on a major class of proteins), and also at List of enzymes and any other useful list articles we have that are confined to enzymes. In a separate section, it could point to any useful articles on protein/petide hormones, or at structural proteins, etc.; in this way, it would provide an overview of the sorts of things proteins do, and access to all our articles that describe protein functions, and list specific proteins. It can, of course, also have links to useful categories, thereby drawing readers into the category system. The general-reader list articles don't need to be complete because they are only providing a "bigger-picture" overview of the subject for the general reader - they are not a substitute for a database or detailed seppi-style list, which will fill in the detail.

    I don't think very fact-filled lists on proteins work well; they overlap with the actual articles, they're harder to maintain, and they become enormous because of the sheer number of proteins in any organism. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is exactly what I had in mind. A big-picture list-of-lists which starts out with an with a description the various ways protiens are classfied that in turn links to more detailed sublists. Boghog (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This list of lists will not mention individual proteins, hence the size should be manageable. Boghog (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Give basic facts as a service to our readers. Save having to manually update the list by transclusion: ideally WP:LST so the list is updated automatically whenever a linked article's updated.—S Marshall T/C 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into separate sublists - definitely a useful topic, problem was that execution was wrong. I don't see the problem of a list with this length - if needed, non-notable proteins can be filtered out. Karnataka (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists of such proteins can be retrieved by search in databases like Uniprot. But having it as a WP page is hardly helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (weak) delete. I don't know sh*t about proteins. From what I read here, it is a vast subject, and one that may get quite specialized very fast (I mean, beyond the scope of even a regular college educated person). It looks like someone is trying to create the "Protein Wiki" and I don't think we should aim at being the encyclopaedia of everything at every detail, we are general encyclopaedia. Of "everything" but leave the specialised work for the specialists. I think Elemimele's question is a pertinent one: we probably need a better organization of the subject. Is this a good start (then keep), or something that will hinder a better solution (then delete)? In doubt, I'd delete to foment creation of a better solution. Say, we don't have a List of people (at the tiome of writting) it is a redirect to a section on lists about people at "List of Lists". Maybe this article should be that? A list of lists about proteins? - Nabla (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Gnomic poetry. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome (rhetoric)

Gnome (rhetoric) (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)
"Gnome" is used by various authors as a synonym for either maxim, proverb, or aphorism. It is not a distinct concept, and consequently should not be the subject of an article, per WP:NOTDICT. There is no clear redirect target and the disambiguator makes it an unlikely search term, so deletion seems the best option. (I don't feel that a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be helpful in this case, as there is already a Wiktionary link at Gnome (disambiguation), a more likely landing point for anyone searching for a definition.)
This is a contested PROD; it was challenged by Kvng on the grounds that "WP:NOTDICT can be controversial". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per siroxo. This seems like a good use case for a broad-concept article, in view of the scholarly discussion of what exactly a gnome is and whether/how it should be distinguished from a maxim (much of which seems, interestingly, to be particular to the Anglo-Saxonist community, e.g. here is a review of a book that I don't have access to that discusses the topic; here is said author's earlier MPhil thesis that also delves into the definition of "gnome" at considerable length; here is another article with considerable what-is-a-gnome discussion). In general, leaning too heavily on NOTDICT to the exclusion of BCA tends to disadvantage our coverage of fields (including e.g. most of the humanities, soft social sciences, and law) in which much of the scholarly action is precisely about the disputation of terms. -- Visviva (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On review of the arguments and sources I'm convinced that the BCA of my dreams is at least equally viable at Gnomic poetry (which already has some brief discussion of the English medieval literature that seems to be associated with the more specific definitions of "gnome"), so I'll join in supporting a redirect to gnomic poetry. -- Visviva (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Klaus Berger (theologian), who coined the term. Right now, the article has only one source -- Berger -- so there's nothing that couldn't just be moved over there. If someone wants to build it out later, no prejudice against them doing so. With no independent secondary sourcing in the article at all, however, it's better elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites what do you think of my merge alternate proposal below? —siroχo 06:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't get deep enough in the sourcing to know. If you see that the specific term "gnome" as defined by Berger and used in rhetoric has a connection to "gnomic poetry" and not to any other merge target other than Berger, I don't object, though I'd still default to sending it to the Berger article and defer to more knowledgeable editors to make bold changes from there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an article - it is a definition of an obscure meaning of the term, and nothing else. Not sure if a redirect to the creator of the term is better than a redirect to Wiktionary, or just deleting it. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (retracted my above !vote) I've investigated the scholar results a bit, and I think this term is heavily enough influenced by its own roots in gnomic poetry that the article be merged to that location (until an editor is able to split out more than a stub). —siroχo 01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, we have editors arguing for Delete, Keep and Merge to two different article targets. In three words, no consensus yet. And closers do not issue Super Votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have caught on as a term. Vaguely DICDEF. Super !votes sound incredible! Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:STUBS are not a problem. I'm confident we'll eventually determine the best organization for this material. There's no rush to delete. ~Kvng (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kvng: I don't think anyone has said that the article should be deleted because it's a stub. My concern, echoed by Oaktree and Walt Yoder, was that this is a dictionary definition, and WP:NOTDICT (policy) says that this is a valid reason for deletion. Others have argued that the content could be moved elsewhere, or that the page could be rewritten into a broad-concept article, but if you're saying that page should simply be kept as-is, it would be helpful if you could explain why you don't think NOTDICT applies. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Siroxo said (until an editor is able to split out more than a stub). There doesn't seem to be a consensus here about what to do so I'm suggesting we kick the question out of AfD and let editors do whatever reorganization is needed without the threat of deletion. WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My goal with the merge suggestion is to provide a better article to a reader who is trying to learn about this concept. The current stub would be adequate (IMO) if there were no good merge target, but it's better to merge or redirect given the presence of a good target. —siroχo 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhododendrites and Siroxo: I hope you don't mind, but in the interest of avoiding a no-consensus outcome, I'd like to discuss this a little further. When proposing a merge, the obvious question is WP:Merge what?. The article Gnomic poetry already defines the word "gnome"; there is nothing in the opening sentence of gnome (rhetoric) that is missing from gnomic poetry, except the claim that gnomes are usually in hexameter. This claim is not supported by the EB source, and I think it's generally bad practice to merge unsourced content. As for the two sentences about Berger, I can't see a place for them in that article. So as it stands, I don't see anything from gnome (rhetoric) that should be merged to gnomic poetry.
    Turning to Rhododendrites' proposal: I don't really understand the article's claim about Klaus Berger. The use of the word "gnome" to mean "maxim" is definitely ancient Greek, so Berger didn't invent it. He may have used it in a new way or brought it into prominence or something, but if so, the primary source isn't going to verify that claim. Besides which, same issue as before: I don't see how any of the content from gnome (rhetoric) could be worked into Klaus Berger (theologian). Possibly something could be written about gnomes in the Klaus Berger article, but that would require research to be done and new content to be written, at which point you're not really proposing a merge but rather an expansion of one article and the redirection of the other.
    So I don't think a merge would be appropriate, but I'm happy to !vote redirect rather than delete if there's a feeling that the content ought to be preserved. Gnomic poetry seems to be the most helpful target from the reader's perspective. If you (Rhododendrites and siroχo) agree, then this might bring us closer to a consensus. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with a redirect to gnomic poetry. —siroχo 20:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walt Yoder and Oaktree b: Following on from the above, would either of you be willing to support a redirect to Gnomic poetry, to help us arrive at a consensus (and to make life easier for our hard-working AFD closers)? No obligation to change your !vote or comment further if you don't wish to. (Also pinging Visviva so they aren't left out of the developing discussion, but again, no obligation to comment.) Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, the redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basware

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business news. scope_creepTalk 06:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single reference isn't ample coverage. That is you mistaking PR and paid coverage for valid coverage that doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS. The Finnish source comes from an interview and a press-release and the book while admittedly a secondary source is content that comes directly from the company website and is not that independent. scope_creepTalk 05:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based on the limited preview to the Aamulehti piece, I'd be inclined to agree with Scope_creep, or at least discount it heavily. With the first sentence starting with Basware says it will.., it has all the hallmarks of a journalist taking a press release and rephrasing it.
    I've tried to look for better sourcing in Finnish language newspapers, but it's a pretty rough going. There's tons of hits, but almost all of it is things like this where the company is mentioned briefly, or things like this which are obviously based solely on a company press release.
    I didn't look at every hit, but the ones that struck out as different are these two news stories (both paywalled, unfortunately), which are 408 and 456 words about an information security problem in a Basware product and a whistleblower coming out with details about the problem. The pieces involve commentary by entities like FICORA's National Cyber Security Center and Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority .
    I don't feel quite comfortable enough with WP:NCORP to straight-up !vote here, but I think this is borderline at best. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I translated a whole bunch of Finish articles that mentioned the company as part of the WP:BEFORE, and there was nothing of depth. There is a big PR and corporate social media presence because it is a software company. It needs to do that to survive, but there is little outside that domain. scope_creepTalk 07:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I guess I'll mark myself down as a weak delete for now: if the two Helsingin Sanomat pieces about a single infosec issue are the best there is, it's not a lot. Ljleppan (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry but I'm not seeing a consensus here. Perhaps another week will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Visviva. Okoslavia (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the first two blocks of references:
  • Ref 1 [49] Company site. Fails WP:SIRS Non-rs.
  • Ref 2 [50] Annual report. Fails WP:SIRS Non-rs.
  • Ref 3 [51] Paywalled. Basware makes a profit every year.
  • Ref 4 404'd
  • Ref 5 404'd
  • Ref 6 404'd
  • Ref 7 404'd
  • Ref 8 Paywalled. The trans-title tag states "Basware made acquisitions in Germany worth more than 12 million euros" That is routine coverage, covered by WP:CORPDEPTH. It fails that policy.
  • Ref 9 404'd
  • Ref 10 [52] Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 11 [53] States its a press-release Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 12 [54] Basware tribunal Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS

I don't have any faith that the first paywalled reference in any good when compared to the quality of the other references. It currently an advert and fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 10:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 4-7 and 9 are all from the company's own website. Tivi, the publication of ref #8 is at best a mixed bag (to the point that while I have access to almost every newspaper in Finland through work, we don't seem to have bothered to subscribe to it), and absent evidence to the contrary I'd presume the story it fails CORPDEPTH. Ljleppan (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. After three relists there is a clear consensus that subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Okoslavia (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dance cover

Dance cover (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 topic; article itself little to no citations and full of original research. lullabying (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Verging on No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Call it a WP:HEY Keep if you want. The sources currently in the article are more than sufficient for establishing notability. I'm sure there's a lot more to be said about this trend and its history, too. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources have been found to establish notability. Consider moving to Cover dance since that's the term used in most sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with the move. From my little research while improving the article, "cover dance" is the activity/hobby/community/etc, whereas "dance cover" is the actual performance and/or recording, so cover dance is the broader term. We could probably just do a WP:BOLD move after the AFD closes. —siroχo 03:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the article's current refs. Thanks for adding them, @Siroxo!
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who villains. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sil (Doctor Who)

Sil (Doctor Who) (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)

Despite some potential notability, given that the character was the star of a film, the character's article does not currently meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who villains. Didn’t Sil appear more than once? I don’t really remember, but in any case it might be time to make a “not Tardis Data Core” essay Dronebogus (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blinovitch Limitation Effect, Destrii, Muriel Frost, Kadiatu Lethbridge-Stewart, Iris Wildthyme, Shayde, Fey Truscott-Sade, Sam Jones (Doctor Who), Molly O'Sullivan, Jason Kane (Doctor Who), Flip Jackson, Mila (Doctor Who), Charley Pollard, Evelyn Smythe, Thomas Brewster (Doctor Who), Abby (Doctor Who), Vislor Turlough, Rutan (Doctor Who), Draconian (Doctor Who), Sisterhood of Karn, Henry Gordon Jago, Professor George Litefoot, Forge (Doctor Who), Timewyrm, Threshold (Doctor Who), Coal Hill School, Nimrod (Doctor Who), Nobody No-One, Borusa, The Monk (Doctor Who), Polly (Doctor Who), Ben Jackson (Doctor Who), List of UNIT personnel, John and Gillian, Shalka Doctor, Sabbath (Doctor Who), Chris Cwej, Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who), The Other (Doctor Who), Alan Jackson (The Sarah Jane Adventures), Vortis (Doctor Who), Thal (Doctor Who), Ogron, Werewolf (Doctor Who), Sil (Doctor Who), White Guardian, Mara (Doctor Who), Sabalom Glitz, Castellan (Doctor Who), Professor Edward Travers, Alpha Centauri (Doctor Who)
Such a mass deletion would significantly alter the coverage of Doctor Who on wikipedia. WikiProject Doctor Who was not informed beforehand. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sil (Doctor Who) has had clean-up templates (including notability) for well over a year. The Dr Who project automatically get notified of related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They did get such notifications. They got fifty-one of them over two days. What did you expect them to do in those circumstances? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anameofmyveryown, many of these AFD nominations have been withdrawn after I informed the nominator that I thought they were overwhelming AFD space. And I did inform the Doctor Who WikiProject yesterday when I saw all of the nominations, I posted a notice on their talk page (see here) which you know because you responded to my notice. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The operative word in my comment was "beforehand". The first AFD was lodged at 07:00, 01:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC). Your notice was posted 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC), which was 5hrs 21mins afterwards. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal for interested parties to be informed after a nomination, rather than beforehand. As I said above, many of these articles had issues that had been flagged up months beforehand. Sionk (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject DW had years to clean those articles up. Thank you for noting that User:Pokelego999 deserves a barnstar for tackling this issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get some consensus on the redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like other Doctor Who articles, we need some agreement on a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mara (Doctor Who)

Mara (Doctor Who) (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)

Despite some potential notability, subject is a minor recurring villain who's article is rather short and does not display GNG nor SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, two different redirect targets mentioned at List of Doctor Who characters is not suitable as it is a redirect itself.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like I said in my first relist, List of Doctor Who characters is not a suitable redirect target as it is, a redirect! Agree on another redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the list of characters isn't a suitable target, then List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens is fine. The target is briefly discussed there. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Time Lord. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Castellan (Doctor Who)

Castellan (Doctor Who) (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)

Rather minor recurring character. Despite there being some sources, it doesn't seem to meet SIGCOV or GNG. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Time Lord, since it seems to discuss a reoccurring aspect of TL culture and not a particular character. Dronebogus (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:SIGCOV without independent reception/analysis. Redirect would be a good WP:ATD if there is a suitable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect targets proposed. And List of Doctor Who characters won't be appropriate as it is a redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters so it's that article or Time Lord.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no agreement on redirection target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Time Lord makes more sense, since the list is really just a series of one line redirects. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The standard is NCORP and the keep side has not overcome the source analysis. Assertive policy lite votes were given limited weight. Spartaz Humbug! 14:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valnet Inc.

Valnet Inc. (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)

'Investment company' and/or 'content farm', article has barely any content - not enough to differentiate between these two characterisations - and certainly nothing to assert notability - sourcing is similarly patchy, with the usual routine funding announcements, press releases, acquisitions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; WP:CORPDEPTH. I would refer interested parties to WP:SERIESA. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've worked on the article. In my opinion, relevant are WP:NCORP § Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations and WP:NOT. Sufficient reliable sources discuss the significant and demonstrable effect that this media conglomerate has had on culture and entertainment. I'm referring particularly to the major structural changes it makes to its acquired websites, with a recent example being CBR.[1][2][3] The article barely having any content makes it a stub, not a candidate for deletion. It is an investment company that runs content farms; if this is unclear, it does not make it a candidate for deletion, but for copy editing. But, yes, there's definitely room for improvement.

References

  1. ^ https://www.thepopverse.com/cbr-layoffs-june-2023-comic-book-resources-layoffs-inside
  2. ^ https://bleedingcool.com/comics/firings-quittings-and-valnet-fallout-at-comic-book-resources/
  3. ^ https://www.comicsbeat.com/inside-cbr-layoffs/

--2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BCB1:BFE1:C37F:5C6A (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. A few weeks ago this might have been a delete as Valnet has stayed under the radar with routine coverage. But the timing here put us in an interesting place. We have in-depth, direct significant coverage from the who's who of reliable genre publications, independent of the company (if we consider whistleblowers as independent), the only issue is whether they qualify as secondary sources. I think its fair to say most of the articles are a hybrid with a good amount of synthesis of information and background. —siroχo 08:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely notable per 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BCB1:BFE1:C37F:5C6A's comments and refs. These refs definitely meet our standards for reliability - I checked.
--User:A. B. 20:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Private Equity--21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All three sources introduced by SPA 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BCB1:BFE1:C37F:5C6A (whose sole contribution to WP is to this AfD) refer to layoffs at CBD following its acquisition by Valnet. Again, the stuff of WP:SERIESA - routine company events reported in specialist vertical/trade media. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Alexander, there's nothing wrong with specialist vertical/trade media. Our notability rules don't rule them out. They just need to be reliable.
    2. As for "routine events", this articles refs above actually refer to drastic problems developing - hardly routine. Not only that, but CBD's problems are directly attributed to new Valnet management and policies.
    3. WP:SERIESA ("Wikipedia is not Crunchbase") is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It has a boxed caveat at the top:
      "This is an essay on notability."
      "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
      • The essay was written by just 2 people -- there was no RfC or broader community input that I'm aware of.
      • I'll note that some of the things the essay cites as "routine" are anything but -- indicating a flawed understanding of business. Bankruptcy, for instance; corporate death is a major "life event". Mergers and acquisitions for another; a company gets bought or sold and that's another major life event.
    4. IP editors are valid contributors under our rules. Some of my best edits were made as an IP.
    A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander, in response to your statement, "whose sole contribution to WP is to this AfD". My provider appears to have given me the whole 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:* IPv6 subnet. As I wrote, "I've worked on the article." I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, from various IP addresses. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:38A1:AC8A:19C1:5D08 (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, with thanks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the edit history, this article was created by a 2001:1c06:19ca:d600 IP [58]. Beccaynr (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:38A1:AC8A:19C1:5D08 has a comment on that? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TNT. Reads like a brochure advertising article. Currently fails WP:NCORP, after looking at the first two blocks of references. Can't see how it is notable though as they're is currently no definition of what it actually is. Its been put up as a brochure advertising article with little thought, (meaning contemptous of wikipedia) by paid editors. scope_creepTalk 18:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despicable accusations aimed at me, the primary editor of the article. To state that payment made me attempt to, contemptuously and thoughtlessly - no less, advertise the company. The listing of brands, and the sentence about their pay-per-view system, must have really ticked you off, huh? The sentence about the company being a "content farm business" isn't exactly a compliment, and the subsequent sentence about it motivating its freelancers to get pageviews further emphasizes the company's clickbait priority. Something I reiterated in my contribution to this AfD above; and you actually think I'm attempting to promote the company? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D07:6443:4FA5:AB8B (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references, in the first two blocks:
  • Ref 1 [59] Non-rs.
  • Ref 2 [60] "We cannot be more thrilled that Little Angel has found the right home with Moonbug,” commented Hassan Youssef, CEO of Valnet, the Quebec, Canada-based company that operates Little Angel." Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND. Comes from a press-release
  • Ref 3 [61] Paid for company profile.Not independent Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 4 [62] Company profile and listing of press-releases.Not independent Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 5 [63] Company profile. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 6 [64] Looks like a secondary source until you realise it fails WP:ORGIND as company interview used to gather info. Not independent.
  • Ref 7 [65] Passing mention. Not in-depth. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 8 [66] Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Info taken from press-release and company employees. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 9 [67] Passing mention.
  • Ref 10 [68] Company sale. Routine coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Info from a press-release. Not independent.
  • Ref 11 [69] Content taken from a company press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 12 [70] More routine coverage of sale. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Not independent.

There is not a single secondary source in the whole two blocks and I have a severe doubts there is anything of note in the third. As a private company there is no coverage that hasn't been generated by the company itself. It completely non-notable as it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 19:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing here is pointless. Context is completely missing, both for references individually (i.e. what they are used for), and for the references in general. For example, you start off with "Non-rs", about an official department of the Government of Canada giving us the date of incorporation. It is a stub article. Many of these references are merely used to back up claims about brand ownership. I urge you to look at the bigger picture. Perhaps you are willing to first read the other contributions on this AfD page, and give your views on the alternate criteria in relation to the impact that the company's management and policies have had on several notable websites. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D07:6443:4FA5:AB8B (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is company incorporation documents. They are WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and are effectively non-rs and not independent, meaning they they fails WP:SIRS, by long established consensus. If you were an actual Wikipedian you would know that, but since you seem to have a clear COI, I will trust my own judgement and ignore you. The three references are above, which are included in the list I created above, all fails WP:SIRS. They are so woefully bad that I can barely comment on them. scope_creepTalk 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that your trying to do your job but your comments are fundamentally flawed because you don't understand notability policy. Everybody must work and get paid to keep there head dry. scope_creepTalk 21:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, you wrote
  • "If you were an actual Wikipedian you would know that, but since you seem to have a clear COI, I will trust my own judgement and ignore you."
I'm requesting you focus on the AfD discussion and skip this sort of stuff. Making comments like this is not the Wikipedia way.
-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: The editor came in three ago as an IP editor and clearly dont understand notability policy. They are here to defend this company article, so they probably have some kind of coi. What part of the comment is not accurate exactly? scope_creepTalk 07:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: The IP address above, is a different address to the one below. scope_creepTalk 07:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw the message above about the whole IP address. scope_creepTalk 07:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've taken a bit of an edit pass on the article, updated some references, attempted to improve NPOV by focusing the article more on the aspects that provide notability, and started to provide a bit more context in the "brands" section. Still needs work, but I've updated my !vote above from "weak keep" to "keep" based on further examination of the SIRS sources related to the recent CBR news. —siroχo 21:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Siroxo. Okoslavia (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also edited the article, including to remove press releases, WP:CRUNCHBASE, repetitive excess company listings, etc. The quality and depth of sources remaining do not appear to support notability for a commercial organization:
I excluded sources from this list that announce or mention acquisitions by Valnet and are trivial coverage. From my view, one of the notability problems for this article includes the WP:UNDUE focus on recent events at Comic Book Resources that have been reported on in-depth by one source. This is not significant coverage of the company itself in multiple sources. Based on the available sources, it does not seem possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about this corporation, unless a large amount of promotional, low-quality content and sources are added. Delete therefore seems most appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr and anyone else who is worried about the press release links, I've added a talk page message about the non-reliable sources Talk:Valnet Inc.#Still need more reliable sources, but until then, this is better than nothing. Suffice it to say, they are not meant for notability, more details in the talk page. —siroχo 12:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you redirect to disamg article when the subject of the article is non-notable. scope_creepTalk 15:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could feasibly add a disambig line like

• Valnet, Inc, owner of Comic Book Resources and other media outlets.

and do the IP user's suggestion of moving the CBR-related information into the destination article. Disambiguation pages frequently point to articles about notable subjects that are not under the title of the disambiguation page itself. If the disambiguation entry grows too large, we'd know it's time to revive this article. I'm happy with this redirect + merge into Comic Book Resources plan. —siroχo 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not process. Its not how its down. Redirects are mechanism's used here. scope_creepTalk 10:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seeing as how there isn't an obvious redirect target as per below. The NCORP/GNG debate about the word "or" is tired and generally used by editors to duck meeting NCORP (which is really a guidelines on *how* to interpret GNG). It is certainly WP:OR to suggest that this "media conglomerate" has had such effects on society - show me the references. Redirect to Comic Book Resources. None of the sources mentioned here provide sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" about the company and most of the resources are in fact talking about CBR (thanks to a decision made by the topic company) and not the topic company itself. I acknowledge we have broad descriptions of the topic company included in some references but this still falls short of establishing the notability of this company. HighKing++ 10:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This, similar to the suggestion above, is WP:RECENTISM. Their most well-known brand is likely Screen Rant; not CBR. And the article started off as a redirect to MovieWeb, another well-known brand - as is their film website Collider. This is the reason I included a Brands section in the article. It feels like we are now back to square one. In my experience, one or two editors briefly recognized that WP:NCORP contains content relevant to what are called "primary criteria", and content relevant to "alternate criteria", with WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, etc. only being relevant to the former. (Note the italic "or" at WP:NCORP § Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations.) I pointed out the effect that this media conglomerate has had on culture and entertainment, particularly the structural changes it makes to its acquired websites. That is how it got noticed by people outside of the organization, as demonstrated by independent sources. As an example, I included three references about CBR. Other editors then ran with these sources to demonstrate the company meets the primary criteria - which it does not. Next, editors stripped all references from the article that were merely used to back up claims about brand ownership. (The majority of those sources were sufficiently reliable and non-primary, but had no in-depth coverage, which made meeting the primary criteria a hurdle.) This then allowed editors to completely remove the brands overview, including all websites that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Even though the brands are quite relevant when it comes to establishing the subject meeting the alternate criteria. On this page, to no avail - as far as I can tell, I've requested "Perhaps you are willing to [...] give your views on the alternate criteria in relation to the impact that the company's management and policies have had on several notable websites." --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:F2E5:A219:C144:2B70 (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary WP:NCORP criteria apply because this is a commericial organization, but I mentioned on the article Talk page [71], the WP:NCORP guideline [...] offers guidance on reviewing articles based not only on GNG, but also the second prong of WP:N, i.e. WP:NOT. For example, WP:ORGCRIT includes, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, with a wikilink to WP:PROMO. But whether we refer to this assessment as GNG plus NOT or just NCORP with its particularly applicable guidance, the analysis is similar. The alternate criteria WP:COMMERCIAL appears to echo this with its reference to WP:NOTADVERTISING.
From my view, it also appears to potentially be original research to assert that this commerical organization has had an effect "on culture and entertainment, particularly the structural changes it makes to its acquired websites." At minimum, the use of an example with sources mostly already included in the Comic Book Resources article does not appear sufficient to support notability for Valnet under any guideline.
Also, I did not remove the brands overview, because this appears to verifiable content; I removed press release sources, as further discussed on the article Talk page; there appear to be promo and NPOV concerns related to the removal of the listing by another editor, and this may undermine the notability of Valnet according to WP:PRODUCTS; all of this turns on whether reliable secondary sources exist, which should also be independent. The sources that supported the removed content [72] are:
  • 2015 Variety announcement - "This year, three widely read blogs — Collider, Screen Rant and Latino Review — sold to deep-pocketed buyers Complex Media, Valnet, and former Chrysler and Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli, respectively."
  • 2016 Comicsbeat announcement - "site founder Jonah Weiland announced that he had sold the site to Valnet, a Canadian-based company that specializes in developing media-focused websites such as Screen Rant, which it also owns."
  • 2020 The Wrap announcement - "Popular entertainment news site Collider was acquired by online media publisher Valnet, the company announced on Tuesday. Valnet is also the owner of Game Rant and Screen Rant."
  • TheGamer Ownership, Funding, and Advertising Policy - "TheGamer has been owned and operated by online publisher Valnet Inc in Montreal, Canada since February 2015. Valnet (a subsidiary of the Valsef) investment group) oversees operation of TheGamer across all platforms across on which the brand appears"
  • There is also a CNET download link that is not working for me, used as a cite for the 2014 BabyGaga acquisition and ownership of TheRichest.
Wikipedia is not a directory, and it does not appear that independent, reliable, secondary sources are currently available to broadly show "the impact that the company's management and policies have had on several notable websites." I would also add that from my view, concerns within the policies and guidelines about promo and advertising are not necessarily related to the motives of any particular editor; I think we should examine the content and sources and objectively assess whether the content is encyclopedic. Beccaynr (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the brands section. It's not meant to be permanently gone. However, without verifiable acquisition dates, it read a bit too PROMO to me. Contextualizing the brands as acquired over time turns it from a promotional list to the first step towards a company history. I don't want to take an "all or nothing" stance, but if we only have a small fraction of the brands verified with acquisition dates I'm not sure we're doing article readers any favors and might even mislead them. I guess my rough line would be at least 50% should be easily verifiable for a CORP article about a holding company, so if the secondary sources you have can verify acquisition dates to roughly that level, I would support restoring it. —siroχo 08:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm aware that the company does not fall in one of the categories listed under WP:COMMERCIAL, but it still meets WP:COMMERCIAL itself. Unless the suspicion exists that the article was created for WP:PROMOTION. At least one editor has stated, without hesitation, that it was. It was not. I suspect that some editors are so afraid of giving companies free advertising that their fear alone is sufficient to oppose including a Brands section. Even though, as a reader, it is informative to learn which brands a company owns, particularly given this company's pageviews/clickbait priorities. Which was pointed out in the article from the start. (The stub, with very few sentences, called it a "content farm business" and pointed out how it tries to get more pageviews.) I truly don't understand how anyone can think I've tried to promote the company, let alone got paid to do so. It must have been the Brands overview, right? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:F2E5:A219:C144:2B70 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would, honestly, just leave it there. Enough for now, let others contribute (if any) before this closes (God help the closer)... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, I was using the Reply function, which for whatever reason, did not let me see these additional comments before I added my comment above. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page should not be merged or redirected just to Comic Book Resources because per their website they are the parent company of multiple brands which have their own articles on Wikipedia including XDA Developers and Screen Rant so redirecting to just 1 franchise of their portfolio would be incorrect and misleading in my opinion. Notability is not inherited per WP:INHERITORG but inheritability should be treated differently between parent to child versus child to parent and in my opinion the parent organization should inherit notability in many cases. Like in this case the article is clearly deficient and yet probably should exist with summary coverage of each subsidiary which can be partially taken from their respective articles. - Indefensible (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In addition to keep and delete arguments, two different redirect targets have been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to CBR. The only substantive material I'm seeing here is better covered at that article; and even together with the other fragments, does not add up to SIGCOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jagran Public School, Lucknow

Jagran Public School, Lucknow (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)

Created by a single purpose editor. Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am hungry to delete it. Why not? Okoslavia (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of public art in Shanghai. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Ma Zhanshan

Statue of Ma Zhanshan (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)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Zhang Side, notability is not established with substantive sources. Existence of art outdoors is not automatic notability and no basis to remove a prod without addressing the unacceptable lack of sources and GNG failure. Features in a park can also be included in the park article without stand-alone articles. Reywas92Talk 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. While the !vote count is close, there hasn't been a serious rebuttal to the delete !voters' arguments criticizing the quality of the cited sources. The consensus for salting is less clear, and in my personal discretion as an administrator I don't see enough repeated recreation of the article to warrant it at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Vasinova

AfDs for this article:
Danielle Vasinova (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)

Renominating the article. Not meeting ACTOR or really GNG. I've reviewed the sources used, not much in RS, nor does this individual have anything beyond one-offs or bit parts. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the newest article I could find and it's very PROMO [73] and almost a year old at this point. No new sources turned up since our last time at AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    2 new sources found and added to the article. Check my comments below. Naomijeans (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Connecticut. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like this article has a long, complicated history, but it seems like the subject now also has a long history of bit parts and is not really notable by ACTOR guidelines. The Courant source is OK, though, like many of the other references is promo'ish. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To the IP Editor with no prior edits until today: what does it mean that the article had "Complicated history??" Do not make things up just to fill up space. The deletion history shows the subject once deleted in 2008, presumably when she didn't have as much credits or citations. Then it was nominated a few months ago but withdrawn, because the article was not yet completed. In what way is this a "long complicated history??" I also wonder if you have enough expertise to be voting here. Naomijeans (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (I am the anon IP you're addressing.) I've been editing WP since its early days and, by the looks of your homepage, since you were 4 or 5 years old. I retired from account-based editing because of the growing problems of bullying, accusations of bad faith, ad hominems, etc...of the kind somewhat similar to the way you just addressed me. Now, I just stop-by from time-to-time to weigh-in here and there. In older, more decorous days, this is the point where you would tender an apology for your grossly off-base assumption, especially since you yourself seem only to have been here at WP for a few months. Now, as to your concern: the article's history is ipso facto complicated because of its 3 AfDs and the fact that there still aren't enough acceptable sources that are not promotional, web cruft, etc., as well as the fact that she very obviously does not pass in the primary notability space of ACTOR. I don't know how this AfD will end, but I would urge you in the future to dial-down the snark and try to avoid making assumptions. Best. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The person who replied to you is the creator and primary maintainer of the article, if that's any hint as to where the snark is coming from. - Bkid Talk/Contribs 03:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To the IP Editor: The fact that you are doing this without an account is very suspicious, although you are probably not breaking any policy, I suspect you are a paid editor by profession and just voting delete on notable people so then you can contact these people and offer them your service. Back to the argument of notability, your reasoning again does not make any sense. it is besides the point if the page was nominated for AFD before, because the first was in 2008 when the person did not have much news and the 2nd was when I was not yet done with the page content completely and this same nominator nominated it for deletion, so I asked him to cancel so I could improve the page. It does not count as a real AFD. So that there is no complicated history and you are just making up nonsense words and reasons for deleting this page. The person is notable based on being a notable MODEL, not actor, but her acting ads to her notability. She has been on cover of at least 3-4 magazines, which makes her a notable model and meet WP:NMODEL. Naomijeans (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I am the anon IP you're addressing.) Congratulations. You've now graduated from making ill-advised assumptions to accusing me of bad faith. FWIW, I am a professor at a major private research university who has started numerous important WP articles in scientific areas and science bios and has made thousands of other edits before I semi-retired to anon editing, partially because of smug, newbie eds such as yourself making WP an increasingly unwelcome place to work. Good job. 128.252.154.8 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the subject meets WP:GNG. In addition to the existing citations, a search shows that TMZ[74] and People[75] cover the subject. desmay (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TMZ isn't a reliable source, People is about the Shark Tank guy suing her as his girlfriend, not really about her either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To the nominator: Firstly, it not accurate that there are no new news sources since a year ago, and that is not a valid reason for deletion. There is no such policy. Here are 2 recent articles I was able to find and she was also on cover of both these magazines: Grazia and DMH Magazine. She was also on the cover of Glamour, so based on WP:NMODEL she would qualify. These articles here will also mean she meets WP:BASIC: MAXIM, OK Magazine, Flaunt, Hardford Courant, Variaties.Naomijeans (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She hasn't make any significant contribution to a field of entertainment, being on the cover of a magazine is what models get paid to do. Oaktree b (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Grazia is an interview and DHM is a bunch of photos with captions; first is a primary source, second isn't extensive coverage. Rest are about the same level of minimal coverage. Hartford Courant is also an interview, Variety is just her photo with a paragraph. She doesn't have a long article about her; she gives interviews and poses for photos, that's what models do. Oaktree b (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There were no substantial sources at the last AfD, if some have been created since then, they would help her notability. No new substantial articles have been published since the last AfD, most of the ones you've listed existed as of the last AfD and didn't help notability there. She didn't meet it then with the existing sources (including these ones), nothing has changed since then that would change her notability is what I'm saying. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being on a cover of a magazine, whether paid or not, would not make a difference. In fact, if paid that is even better, that means they are a popular model to get paid for it. In this case however, all the 3-4 magazines that have her on the cover did an editorial on her, so that would mean she was not paid. Here is another Magazine she was on the cover of L'Officiel.Naomijeans (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we could use a few more editors to review sourcing which the nominator argues are totally inadequate for a Wikipedia article. I should note that I closed the last AFD with a decision to Draftify this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As noted in the article and verified by referenced sources, the subject has appeared on the covers of at least three major magazines in the past year alone. I concur with the comment made by another editor regarding her work as actor contributing to her notability. CaseArmitage (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more discussion on the sources that have been added that the nominator is disputing as inadequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability. The majority of the references are gossip sites and non-mainstream entertainment publications. This is a resume of the person. Not an article of any real encyclopedic information. The only major result that comes in is the lawsuit and allegations against her ex-boyfriend Robert Herjavec who is far more notable than her. And his article actually covers this and it is not even mentioned on this one. But on the other hand, none of the keep votes actually say why this meets the notability requirements other than saying they found some articles or make a blanket statement about coverage without explaining why the current information helps with notability. She was never on the cover of any "major magazines." Being on the cover doesn't mean anything. Her acting credits are just bare at best in terms of actually knowing who she is. I refer back to the first AFD in 2008 which had the same issues. We should consider preventing another creation of this same subject to avoid another AFD which will have the same concerns about notability merits. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt interviews and gossipy churnalistic sources are not what we should be basing a BLP on. Once we start discussing such with any degree of seriousness, then it's a good indication that the necessary sourcing is absent. There has been some disgraceful badgering and ad Homs at the IP. I'm telling the offenders now that this isn't acceptable and I don't want to see it again from them. Spartaz Humbug! 09:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too much Promo type content and gossip coverage here, with not enough to support GNG. I also think a salt is in order here as well. User:Let'srun 03:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snak the Ripper

AfDs for this article:
Snak the Ripper (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)

Has been to AfD before, closed for no agreement. I can't find anything beyond hyper-local sources that would support keeping this. Not meeting general or musician notability guidelines. Also, no new sources have turned up since the last nomination for AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm wondering what has changed in the past 3 months since the last AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm genuinely surprised this doesn't pass WP:GNG more "clearly" (in the sense we have to debate this), but after review I think the sources available (a multitude of Canadian coverage from around the country at different time frames) still pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of CSI: NY characters. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ross (CSI: NY)

Adam Ross (CSI: NY) (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 uses unreliable sources (IMDB, I believe CSI: FIles is a fan page), a quick search on Google gives little to no results focusing on the character. Spinixster (chat!) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the current sources are user-generated content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qcne (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adam Ross is a main character on a television series that has been off the air for ten years. There would have been limited news about him back then except from entertainment sources. There is less available now because websites purge old pages.
    As for CSI Files, yes it was set up for fans of the CSI franchise allowing them to discuss the episodes, characters, and actors. That part is fan-generated. But the site also contains news articles — most pulled from other sites, episode reviews detailing the various characters' situations and behavior, and interviews by freelance writers. That part is not fan-generated. Ducky Submarine (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ducky Submarine Check out WP:FICT. Just because a character is the main character in a popular show does not mean that the character is notable. The article is full of WP:Fancruft and there are no sources that demonstrate notability.
    An example of a notable character page similar to Adam Ross would be Ziva David; as you can see, the article also talks about her influence outside of the show. If you can't find sources to demonstrate the character's notability outside of CSI: NY, then I'm afraid the character doesn't warrant a page. Spinixster (chat!) 01:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spinixster The Ziva David article is impressive. But if that is the standard for character pages few will make the cut. Not every article qualifies as "first class". That doesn't mean that they are not full of useful information for readers who are interested.
    As for notability outside of CSI: NY, Adam Ross, along with most other television characters, is only notable for what he does inside the actual show. He is just a character. Not warranting a New York Times article does not make his page of no value to readers. Ducky Submarine (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ducky Submarine Then Adam Ross does not warrant a page, per WP:NOTCATALOG. Again, from WP:FICT: The Wikipedia's general notability guideline is appropriate and sufficient for demonstrating the notability of fictional elements. Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element; when a fictional element is presumed notable, a separate article to cover that element is usually acceptable.
    I only used the Ziva David article as an example of a character that had an impact outside of the show; I did not say that Ziva David is the ideal character page, the page is honestly a big mess right now. Spinixster (chat!) 01:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just going over the sources, most are either semi-reliable or unreliable. CSI Files is a tertiary blog source. As for notability, I agree with Spinixster's assessment of characters having an impact outside the show. Conyo14 (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_CSI:_NY_characters. Not seeing enough to keep this per WP:GNG, just ap lot summary WP:FANCRUFT, but redirects are WP:CHEAP, so why not WP:SOFTDELETE? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for redirection which is what happens in a lot of AFDs about fictional characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Army (1978-1992)

Afghan Army (1978-1992) (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 nominating this article for deletion because it is an unreliable WP:CFORK of Afghan Army. The only new data in the article, the equipment list sourced from Никитенко Е. Г. Афганистан: От войны 80-х до прогноза новых войн. — М.: Астрель : ACT, 2004, has been amended in the process of transcription to increase equipment numbers falsely: 768 to 1568 tanks, 2900 artillery pieces to more than 4,000, etc. There is nothing here which should not be easily merged with Afghan Army before deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Katchanovski

AfDs for this article:
Ivan Katchanovski (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 is a WP:COATRACK for a WP:FRINGE theory of EuroMaidan that has been promoted mainly by Russian state media. Katchanovksi himself is notable neither as an academic, nor as a writer. What content is notable about the theory itself should be rolled into Revolution of Dignity. Nangaf (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’m on the fence. He is also a real academic, and coauthor of the respectable Historical Dictionary of Ukraine. But I cannot confirm that he meets any of the criteria at WP:PROF. Google Scholar shows a small number of works with a lot of citations,[77] but are there enough in peer-reviewed pubs to support notability?  —Michael Z. 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, the only case for notability from the article itself is his Maidan false-flag theory, and IMO that is kind of like WP:1E, which can appear in articles where it belongs and doesn’t warrant an author’s bio. I see he is currently linked in Euromaidan (EDIT: deleted)[78] but not mentioned nor cited there nor in Revolution of Dignity, nor Maidan casualties. I’m voting delete.  —Michael Z. 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that WP:NAUTHOR item #2 as long as the page is expanded and includes more information other than this one theory. If it can't be done, I would merge it into an existing article. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you consider Katchanovski a “creative professional” (when he held a seminar at his university and brought a paper to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association) and the thesis “a significant new theory,” it was originated by fringe websites (like Global Research.ca) and Russian state media (like RT (TV network)) in February–March 2014, not by Katchanovski in October.  —Michael Z. 15:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the more appropriate guidelines for this line of thought are WP:PROF, criteria no. 1, 4, or 7, and I don’t think they are met.  —Michael Z. 16:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Which "significant new concept, theory, or technique" did he pioneer? The Maidan sniper "theory"? I think the criteria uses "theory" in a different way from, say, "conspiracy theory"; it means some significant new theory in some scholarly field, for example. He definitely doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. But odd to judge him there given he is not a journalist and his books are academic. More apt guideline to check would be WP:PROF. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my nomination: going by the details of his biography, the only possible criterion of WP:PROF that Katchanovski might meet is 7 ('The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity') and that impact is essentially solely for the false flag theory of Maidan. Unless there are other grounds for notability -- and I do not consider that his written works qualify him as a notable WP:AUTHOR -- it would be better to include this this theory in the appropriate article on Maidan rather than a biographic article. Nangaf (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:NACADEMIC. As the proposer notes, the article is a mess, mainly about a conspiracy theory. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another user is suggesting we keep per WP:NAUTHOR item 2, which says says 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (emphasis added). Katchanovski fails this because the conspiracy theory is not significant. It's also unclear to me if he originated it. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it respects WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies:

Quoted in Google Scholar 1557 times, with h-index 21 and i10-index 36.[79]
"The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine?" Cited 148 times.
"The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less" Cited 132 times.
"Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006" Cited 95 times.
"The future of private sector unions in the US" Cited 88 times.
"Divergence in growth in post-communist countries" Cited 81 times.
"Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama" Cited 77 times.
Widely quoted in Google Books.[80]
Widely quoted in Google News.[81]
I would also urge colleagues to use the term 'conspiracy theorist' with care (per WP:BLP) because this academic is not widely referred to in these terms in the sources.--Mhorg (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Are you saying people with those numbers all automatically meet some particular notability threshold? I don’t know what those numbers mean.
I don’t know how many citations or whether those citations are “independent reliable sources” or indicate “a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources,” or “a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity” (WP:PROF).  —Michael Z. 20:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, “widely quoted” in the news, with results topped by The Grayzone, editorials under his byline, an interview by the Tehran Times, and some lefty websites obsessed with “Ukrainian Nazis.”  —Michael Z. 21:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is a well-known scholar. For example, some important Western sources quoted him:
Mhorg (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These alone qualify him under NPROF #7 BhamBoi (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of these is an op ed by him. None of them are about him. One of them (La Razon) quotes him extensively; the others are a single quote. This does not demonstrate "substantial impact". BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my note above. While it is possible that the false flag theory of Maidan might qualify as 'substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity' based on media coverage, since Katchanovski's notability does not extend to any other topic, it would be preferable to include what is notable about the theory in the appropriate article about Maidan and delete the biographical article, since he is WP:1E and the article a WP:COATRACK. Nangaf (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is difficult to say what exactly was his "substantial impact" (in academia and outside). Is he an author of the Maidan "false flag theory"? Hardly. That has been debated and investigated by others. See this NYT investigation, for example, that does not mentioned Katchanovsky [101]. We can only say his claims on Twitter and elsewhere were briefly mentioned a number of times. They were usually trivial comments on current events. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, scholar academic with number of peer reviewed articles and publications, well-recognised, no reason to delete the page, other than personal dislike of his theories. Marcelus (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: Can you elaborate why you think IK is a notable WP:ACADEMIC? As far as I can tell he does not meet the appropriate criteria. Nangaf (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is influential and notable academic, author of several books and articles in scientific journals. Marcelus (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generating dismisinformation [102] can add him some notability notoriety, but it does not help him as WP:ACADEMIC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful about using 'Generating disinformation' per WP:BLP. The source you brought in does not use such terms when talking about this person. Mhorg (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that particular publication does describe the "theory" as refuted misinformation and cites him as the source of the "theory". Quickly checking, one can find this opinion by Taras Kuzio who says about two papers by K. which, according to him, "have generated controversy because they are revisionist and have little in common with academic scholarship." My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Katchanovski's academic output is meagre and not by itself sufficient under WP:NPROF. What evidence is there of any influence on his field? Nangaf (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, he hardly passes WP:GNG because most cited sources only mention him or his work in passing, there is no more substantial coverage. These are really just citations of his claims. Yes, his claims are highly controversial and as such were cited in various contexts. Which boils down to the only significant argument to "keep" this page: he has a presumably high citation H index. But is it high enough to establish notability? I am not convinced. Looking at the guideline, Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), it says: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used.. Still, the current version of the page is sourced. A promotion? Yes, maybe. The involvement of someone "with close connection to the subject", the prolonged discussions, waste of time and claims about this page becoming an "attack page" [103] tips the balance toward "delete", in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be first deletion of the page, that I'm aware of, because it is "unconvinient". For real, the only thing that should be our focus is the notability, and Katchanovski as an established academic clearly is notable enough. Marcelus (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI editing, for example someone creating an article about himself or a friend/collaborator, can be an argument for deletion. Someone with a potential COI who also creates a disruption (such as the IP involved at the article talk page I think) can only make it worse. Hence my comment. Just to be clear, I am talking about a potential COI only by IP accounts (such as [104]), not by anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what it all has to do with this article? And especially this discussion? Marcelus (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD fell through the cracks somehow. Leaning towards no consensus, but hesitant to close as such without relisting at least once.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes as an academic, based on the number of citations. Could be considered controversial, but it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citations alone are not sufficient to determine academic notability. Nangaf (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What then would be satisfying? Marcelus (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 8 conditions listed under WP:NACADEMIC. Number of citations, per se, is not among them. Typically it means professors or academics of a similar rank. Katchanovski is a junior academic who does not even have a full-time appointment at his institution.Nangaf (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Victory (church)#Victory Worship. This is a compromise solution that could very well be challenged. But I don't think relisting will help as there has already been good participation in this deletion discussion and the sides are well-articulated. The redirect target actually has more content than the article did. I think this is the best resolution in a discussion between those seeking to Delete the article and those who believe the article should be Kept. For those editors who are insistent that any page created by a sockpuppet should be deleted, you can take your argument to WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Worship

Victory Worship (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 draftified it and it was recreated, and it's still a non-notable band. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a general policy comment rather than a vote on the notability of Victory Worship. I disagree with the proposed process as well. A messy article on something notable can be addressed with edit tags and it doesn't take too long to remove blatantly promotional prose. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That link isn't a "note", it's a link to a category of blocked suspected sockpuppets. It's not clear what the point of including it here is. If you suspect an editor of being a sockpuppet, SPI is thataway. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the article is a sock and the sock master is banned so it can be speedily deleted under G5. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seriously? Only 7,500 units need sold to qualify for a Gold Record per Philippines industry criteria? It's time there is a hard look at wikipedia's music notability criteria using a gold record as a blanket qualification for notability. US/British criteria is 500,000 units. To put 7,500 on a level par with that is ridiculous. I won't weigh in on a keep or delete, but am disappointed in editors who automatically vote keep base on the gold record criteria without considering it with a critical mind. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and as the population of the Philippines is higher than the UK population, that disparity is even more remarkable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Philippines is a poor country, and music piracy is very rampant. Most musicians make money by touring (I suppose the same is true for almost all countries, but more so in the Philippines). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if not G5 speedy delete. This is not ready for mainspace. The certified gold is a bit of nonsense. Per WP:NMUSIC, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. The operative word is may. There is no indication of notability beyond the sale of 7,500 units. This is not presumed notability. I would suggest draftify, but as the page creator is a banned sock, that would just be backdoor deletion I think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sales number seems low, but it hit a Gold record in the Philippines, seems to be notable as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should merge or just redirect to Victory (church) which already has an arguably better section about the band. —siroχo 08:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all content on this page is already on that one, so there is nothing to merge. I agree that redirect is sensible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, when we start to get into the pattern of doing anything other than deleting for articles created by puppets, it encourages them to do sock puppet, because they can count on the G5 CSD eligible getting re-direct if it fails a full "keep". To discourage promotional and PR activity, delete should be connsidered... Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, a redirect makes it somewhat less likely that the article is created again, and also makes it easier for any editor to revert if it is. —siroχo 21:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's always delete and salt. Graywalls (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right, but personally, I prefer such options only when the problem is persistent, as it's less in the spirit of WP:5P3. I would hope this issue would end here, and if in a year or two a new editor comes along and are able to write a good article that meets GNG, they can. —siroχo 21:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:G5 and redirect to Victory (church)#Victory Worship per siroxo. Page was created by indef-blocked suspected sockpuppet, and has no substantial edits by any other user, so G5 is appropriate (but since we're already here, no particular reason to speedy it IMO). On the general notability question, I don't think we need to take NMUSIC quite so rigidly as has been suggested above. Guidelines are meant to have reasonable exceptions, and the Philippine standard for gold records seems like such an exception. At the moment the church article actually does a better job of covering the band than the band article, so we will better serve our readers by consolidating coverage there until there is enough verified information to support a split. -- Visviva (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC per above arguments, especially that it had a Gold record. SBKSPP (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, better yet, redirect. I previously wrote I wouldn't vote, but I will now mostly because the previous comment cites "above arguments," but apparently did not read them, as it was previously pointed out that a gold record in the Philippines is only 7,500 units! The gold record seems to be the majority reasoning for the keep votes as if that is unimpeachable criteria, but the guidelines specify only that it may indicate notability. Meeting the Philippine's ridiculously low threshold for a gold record is not enough, and the routine/half-promotional press coverage for this musical project all fall under the umbrella of this Mega-church's oversight and notability. Like a few other editors, I'm also troubled by the sock puppetry in it's creation. Redirect to that church's page is fine. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Victory (church)#Victory Worship per Siroxo and Visviva. -Ian Lopez @ 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I would go along with that. — Maile (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC
RecycledPixels makes a valid point below. Deletion is fine. But I'm not sure how a redirect would work, if you just deleted the article. But nevertheless, you would need to create the Worship part in your own words, without using a redirect pointing to a creation by a banned editor. — Maile (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wasn't asked, perhaps because I'm a KEEP above, but if you want to G5 the article because it was created by a banned editor, I won't object, although it seems like pointless theater to me, but it should be clear that there would be no problem with another editor rewriting the article from scratch. The subject matter of the article, despite the article's horrible current state, meets WP:NMUSIC, and so I still oppose any AFD deletion that would result in editors saying in the future, "you can't make an article about this, it was already brought to AFD and deleted." RecycledPixels (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been rewritten from scratch. No need to G5. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So G5 still applies because the page creator remains the banned sock. Other deletions reasons also still pertain. The only evidence of notability here is that they shifted 7,500 units. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G5 doesn't apply if there have been major edits by non sock editors which an admin would determine, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Major edit does not really describe this. It has gained a sentence and lost the 4 band members. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (G5) as created by a banned user with no substantial edits by others. Also want to object to the idea that being certified gold = notability. As NMUSIC says, meeting such a criteria means it may be notable. In this case, it just means the unit sold 20,000 units. Folks in the US may be used to gold meaning half a million in sales, which are the sort of numbers likely to attract press attention. 20,000 maybe a lot for a smaller country, but doesn't necessarily translate to the kind of sourcing we're looking for. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to this here because the issue has been raised multiple times, not singling you out. I think the guideline in NMUSIC is sound. It's not a policy, it's not a black-and-white line in the sand, it's a suggestion based on a long history of debates over WP's history that if an album reaches a country's gold sales mark, there's a damn good chance that there are multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject that are going to cover that. Can a failed English Google Search about a group in a country where a vast majority of the population does not speak English prove that it's not notable? I say no. And I can't be bothered to do online and hard copy searches in the 20+ languages that are spoken in the Philippines to determine whether or not it's notable. The guideline exists to save us from long, pointless debates about whether such a source exists. Just accept the presumption. Does that mean that some high school garage band will have a Wikipedia article? Of course not. They still have to meet the country's sales guidelines. And according to the nation's certifying agency, only 16 albums in the country met the gold sales mark that year,[106] so arguments that the standards are too lax fail. How many albums met gold sales standards in the United States? Hint: the RIAA article for the year is 48 pages long.[107] (including singles) So this article should be a KEEP based only on that presumption of notability outlined in the NMUSIC guideline. The G5 issue is a total strawman argument. I have taken the one short sentence of prose that the banned sockpuppeter wrote, deleted it, and turned it into three completely unrelated short sentences of prose. I also nuked the list of band members because it was unsourced. There is no prose that closely resembles what the sockpuppeter wrote. This should be closed as keep. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if an album reaches a country's gold sales mark, there's a damn good chance that there are multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject that are going to cover that - In this case we don't have any such sources after nearly 3 weeks at AfD. It seems clear at this point that they are not coming, which reaffirms the 7,500 threshhold is way too low. You anticipate that objection with: Can a failed English Google Search about a group in a country where a vast majority of the population does not speak English prove that it's not notable? but the vast majority of the population of the Philippines do speak excellent English. English is one of two official languages of the Philippines and 92% of the population speak it. There really should be English language sources for an English titled group singing primarily in English, from a Church that holds services in English in a country that is well noted for its high levels of proficiency in English. Also, as noted above, the Philippines has a larger population than the UK, and yet the UK definition for gold is 400,000 units. 7,500 is ridiculously low. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You could be right about the language. I based my statement only on the fact that the infobox of Wikipedia's article on the Filipino language suggests that there are 28,000,000 native speakers of Filipino, whereas Philippine English's infobox suggests that there are 200,000 native speakers of that language in the country. According to that article, there are 52 million people in the country who speak it as a second language, vs. 82 million total speakers of Filipino, of a total population of 109 million according to Philippines, but I'm sure you're right about the 92%; one of those articles is probably wrong. And in case you were wondering, the UK's certifying agency, BPI, certified 132 gold albums in 2015. I'd post a link, but the website is garbage, but you can get to it from [108] and enter the appropriate filters. Compare with PARI's 16 albums in 2015. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I re-read my earlier statement and I instead of saying "where a vast majority of the population does not speak English..." I should have phrased it as "where a vast majority of the population does not use English as a native language..." I apologize for the mis-statement. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of CSI: NY characters. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Danville

AfDs for this article:
Jo Danville (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)

3/5 sources used in this article are blogs, a quick Google search doesn't give enough sources to prove that the character is notable enough to have a separate page. I suggest a merge and redirect to List of CSI: NY characters. Spinixster (chat!) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. While !votes were pretty evenly split, no real rebuttal was provided to the final source analyses provided by editors advocating deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Fireworks

TNT Fireworks (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 notable according to no reliable sources and WP:NCORP. Facebook source should be deleted. Tls9-me (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 03:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Blog source (ironically uses Wikipedia for info) No No ✘ No
No Own website ~ ✘ No
No Source says "NEWS PROVIDED BY TNT Fireworks" at the top of the article" Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes No Directory of companies ✘ No
Yes Yes Government listing of the company ? Unknown
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes No Brief name mention ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
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}}.
—siroχo 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree and pretty obviously too. For example this in tucson.com about the county getting sued over its bad on fireworks has two mentions-in-passing of the company. It has zero in-depth information about the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. One of these days I'm gonna do a source table for GNG/NCORP so that we can explicitly evaluate CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing++ 21:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very well prepared and presented source analysis table, which gives a clear indication that that article is non-notable. I can't see any definition in the references that would indicate it was notable. Woeful sources really Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 11:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone here wants to take stewardship of it to avoid backdoor deletion, I think there's a promising case for draftifying here. This is an old company and there will very likely be analog sources. We just can't really guarantee NPOV without any at all. —siroχo 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you present WP:THREE or even 2 that meet WP:SIRS? —siroχo 20:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Raw search url results are non-rs as you can't identify what article is being talked about, so that is non-statement. If you have sources that satisfy WP:THREE then present so we can examine them. As at the moment, there is not coverage that satisfies WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP. Post something that is valid instead on non-statements. scope_creepTalk 15:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern City Montessori Intermediate College

Modern City Montessori Intermediate College (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)

Created by single purpose editor. Only a wikimap source provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Khandal

Ashish Khandal (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)

Low quality sources, subject doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline. Probably also undisclosed paid editing, see page log on simplewiki as well. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 01:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Sabnis

Dinesh Sabnis (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)

Looks very promotional and not notable. The coverage is all promotional in low-quality sources, and notability is not inherited from membership in organizations. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. based on new sources found (which I hope find their way into the article). Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Hackett (musician)

John Hackett (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)

Subject isn't particularly notable and the only sources I can find with any sort of relation to him are about his brother. 4 sources do come up relating to his band but all of them are from the same website, which I don't believe counts as significant coverage. Article only uses three sources, and only one seems barely notable. Dawnbails (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. MacKenzie, Gary (2017-10-12). "John Hackett". Prog. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via PressReader.

      The review notes: "But tonight they are showcasing John Hackett, with his prolific five-decade long career encompassing classical and full-on rock. ... Easing in gently, Hackett kicks off a varied night by playing a short duo set with collaborator Nick Fletcher on classical guitar. With Hackett playing a strange looking instrument – “It’s a vertical flute, not a plumbing tool!” – they open with the spritely yet gentle Entr’acte, by French composer Ibert, and Hackett’s own Freefall, a pastoral musical sketch evocative of wide open skies."

    2. Reijman, Alison (2022-03-13). "John Hackett in conversation". Prog. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "With a musical career spanning almost 50 years, John Hackett is one of prog’s ‘go to’ flute players, appearing on albums by musicians such as Anthony Phillips, Nick Magnus and most recently, Ms Amy Birks. He’s collaborated on and recorded several classical albums as a solo artist, in duets or bands, including Symbiosis, and these days he records and tours with his own eponymous band, but it’s his contributions to elder brother Steve’s albums for which he’s best known."

    3. Barnes, Mike; Kendall, Jo (2023-04-14). "John Hackett Band". Prog. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via PressReader.

      The review notes: "The scope of the music is progeclectic. Songs such as The Spyglass are melodic, multi-harmonied and Yes-like – with a creepy Big Brother vocal – others such as Theme And Rondo have, naturally for flautist/keyboard player Hackett, a classical influence. Burnt Down Trees has blues and jazz-rock at the centre and Hackett’s mellifluous playing on the Latin-influenced, bouncy instrumental Queenie And Elmo’s Perfect Day – and the Focus-tastic romp Red Hair – is balanced nicely against Fletcher’s rip-roaring prog-jazz guitar work (possibly the band’s secret weapon here)."

    4. Marsh, Steve (May 2009). "Reviews ... : CDs - John Hackett: "Prelude to Summer"". Classical Guitar. Vol. 27, no. 9. p. 43. ISSN 0950-429X. ProQuest 1433306.

      The abstract notes: " A recording of guitar duets and flute/guitar duets featuring flutist, guitarist, and composer John Hackett is reviewed (Hacktrax)."

    5. Jones, Petra (November 2006). "From Minor to Major: An Interview with John Hackett". Flute Talk. Vol. 26, no. 3. pp. 6–8, 27. ISSN 0744-6918. ProQuest 1388830.

      The abstract notes: " Flutist and composer John Hackett is profiled. Growing up in London, he began his musical career as a guitarist like his brother, who became the lead guitarist for the rock band Genesis. Seeing Ian McDonald of King Crimson inspired Hackett to try the flute. He attended Sheffield Univesity, specializing in flute performance and studying composition. After leaving school, he toured with Genesis for a few years. A 1993 neck injury left him unable to play for a year and forced him to switch to a curved headjoint on his flute. Changing his style of playing to the new type of flute was a challenge."

    6. May, Philippa (2018-09-25). "Feast of prog rock in Ewyas Harold with the John Hackett Band". Hereford Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "The John Hackett Band come to Ewyas Harold Memorial Hall for a night of prog rock on Saturday, September 29. Progressive rock flute player, guitarist, keyboard player and singer John is best known for his work with his brother Steve Hackett, the former Genesis guitarist. Since 1975 he has recorded and toured with Steve in Europe, USA and Japan alongside a career as a solo flautist and session player. The band is full of exceptional players who weave beautiful themes from atmospheric soundscapes to funk and rock."

    7. Bryan, Kevin (2018-01-16). "CD reviews : Blue Rose Code, John Hackett Band, Dreamboats & Petticoats, Sandro Ivo Bartoli". Messenger Newspapers. Newsquest. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The review notes: "John Hackett Band,"We Are Not Alone" (Esoteric / Cherry Red)- The multi-talented Mr.Hackett is probably best known for his flute wielding exploits with brother Steve during the late seventies and early eighties but he's now firmly established as a band leader in his own right, and "We Are Not Alone" serves up a veritable feast of free flowing prog rock for your listening pleasure. The 2 CD set is divided equally between live and studio recordings, with classical guitarist Nick Fletcher's contributions also deserving a mention in dispatches as Hackett and his gifted cohorts unveil freshly minted gems such as "Take Control," "Never Gonna Make A Dime" and the instrumental "Blue Skies of Marazion.""

    8. Bryan, Kevin (2020-12-17). "Music reviews". Messenger Newspapers. Newsquest. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The review notes: "John Hackett,"The Piper Plays His Tune" (Hacktrax)- This beguiling home produced offering provides an eloquent vehicle for the consumate artistry of the multi-talented John Hackett, whose instantly identifiable flute sound has graced many of his elder brother Steve's critically acclaimed prog-rock projects since the mid seventies. "The Piper Plays His Tune" captures John at his most melodic and accessible as he indulges his lifelong passion for the delights of good old fashioned pop music via skilfully executed solo ditties such as "Broken Glass," Julia" and the reflective "Too Late For Dreamers.""

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't consider this significant coverage; the first three sources you've provided come from the same magazine, the two ProQuest ones don't appear to be reliable, source #6 is of a local newspaper, and the two last sources provided come from the same newspaper and again appear to be local. I don't really see merit in these being "reliable sources" nor do I see it to be significant coverage enough for this person to require an article. Dawnbails (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From this book, "Flute Talk magazine is an informative resource and a fun read for flutists of all ages and playing levels. It includes interviews with accomplished flutists, features on various performance styles, a column on piccolo playing, performance guides for flute repertoire, masterclass and event listings, and much more. Check out the Web site for more information: www.flutetalkmagazine.com." This book verifies that Kathleen Goll-Wilson served as editor of Flute Talk. I consider Flute Talk to be a reliable source about music-related topics.

This book verifies that since 1982, Colin Cooper has been features editor of Classical Guitar. I consider Classical Guitar to be a reliable source about music-related topics.

Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not exclude local sources from establishing notability. If editors would like to exclude local sources from establishing notability, they need to achieve consensus to change the guideline.

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." It is clear that after combining the biographical coverage in all these independent sources, there is enough coverage to establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MY Titanic

MY Titanic (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 notable; I can't even find a picture of this ship. Ironmatic1 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as large number of sources cited shows notability.
Godtres (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep There are thousands of ship articles without pictures. Just because someone hasn't released a photograph under a Wikipedia compatible licence does not mean that the ship is not notable. This has to be the worst reason to nominate an article for deletion ever. Mjroots (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not being able to find a photo of the ship is not a reason to nominate it for deletion. Next time, go to the articles talk page and place the {{photo requested}} tag at the top of the page, directly beneath any WikiProject tags. As for the notability, this article seems to check out and it is sourced strongly and accordingly.
4theloveofallthings (talk) 4theloveofallthings (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_13&oldid=1166343554"