The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Agree with the above reasoning. I found one other short article linked on the Dutch wikipedia. Given the age of the page there is not enough interest on the part of the community to find English sources or to translate the page about him from Dutch Kewal Raydell it fails notability for English language users. MtBotany (talk) 15:36, 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.
I'm surprised that the two editors above say that this has "good references". The first has half a sentence, "as did his Bowland cheese, made with cinnamon, apple and raisin" saying that this cheese won a prize at a county show, as various of my aunts and great-aunts and friends of the family used to every year, and the second is a clear advertisement complete with contact details. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted by Phil Bridger above, neither of the sources included in the article are valid significant coverage in reliable sources. Searches did not turn up much aside from brief mentions and sales pages. Rorshacma (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Through the coverage it receives in reliable sources, just like any other topic. In this particular case, I'd say that WP:NPRODUCT would be one of the appropriate guidelines. Rorshacma (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest merge to Lancashire Cheese but I couldn't find reliable sources identifying Bowland cheese is a type of Lancashire cheese. I'm excluding sites that look like wiki mirrors. Graywalls (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly - a source search shows it's clearly a product sold by several cheesemongers and supermarkets in the UK and NL - clears WP:V - but I just can't find anything that would source it properly. SportingFlyerT·C15:14, 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. This was a complex discussion, with a mix of deletes, redirects, merges, and keeps that were actually all specific as to why that choice was the only viable choice. Discussion appeared to successfully rebut the NPERIODICAL issues, but ultimately there was a rough consensus that the sourcing was inadequate to meet GNG. Normally, per ATD I'd go with the redirects, but as various !votes (on several sides) gave firm reasonings as to why a redirect was not suitable, I've opted for delete. If someone would like the material to add some into another article (or bits into different articles), let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:NPERIODICAL. Weak sources in the article. The sources are either the publication itself or the RIT website. No reliable secondary sources.
GDT started out on RIT, but was published and distributed on the University of Rochester, Monroe Community College, Rutgers University, and broadly in the city of Rochester, NY. It was never a RIT sanctioned organization, and really should not be merged with the RIT page. Kjoenth (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re "No reliable secondary sources."
-Democrat & Chronicle is daily newspaper published in Rochester, NY (two citations)
-A blog entry by one of the founders is neither RIT nor the publication
-A brand new 2.5hr audio history/interview of two of the founding editors
Comment - Keep: Does not appear to fail WE:NPERIODICAL. Specifically, GDT was printed and released on a regular schedule and distributed through a press syndicate.
Comment I agree that D&C is a reliable source, but I'm wondering if it was just a passing mention or if it received significant coverage by the D&C. The newspaper is locked behind a paywall so I don't know. Additionally, a blog entry typically isn't reliable under WP:RSBLOG. Can't say for sure about an interview, if that meets WP:RS. --My Pants Metal (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re the article in the D&C: the article is specifically about how GDT/Hell's Kitchen was trying to get more funding sources. Mentions their membership in Uwire and the Independent Associated Press. Has pull quotes from interviews with people at GDT, Hell's Kitchen, and the executive director of the Independent Press Association. Approximately 2/3 of newspaper page, 1st page of the business section. Kjoenth (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "blog entry typically isn't reliable"-- I am a novice at this sort of thing, but as the blog entry is written by one of the founders of GDT on the topic of the evolution of the logo, doesn't that make the blog a primary source as in "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"?
Contextually, it is difficult to see how a citation about the logo could from sources other than the publication itself or something written by one of the people involved with the publication.
I tend to agree with U664003803 that the pages that exist for other student-started satire publications offer good examples. Kjoenth (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was written by a person associated with the publication is why it DOESN'T show notability. Sources that show notability are reliable, secondary and independent. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@My Pants Metal lists two broad categories supporting deletion:
Appears to fail WP:NPERIODICAL.
Weak sources in the article, including the observation that sources are either the publication itself or the RIT website. No reliable secondary sources.
@My Pants Metal suggests merging a portion of this article into the Rochester Institute of Technology page per WP:STUDENTMEDIA.
I believe @My Pants Metal misunderstands what the relationship between GDT and RIT was. For this reason, I will begin with why the GDT article can not merge with the RIT entry
A.) GDT was never a RIT organization
GDT was founded by RIT undergraduates, but was never a RIT student organization. It remained an independent, student-run publication from its founding until its final issue in 2005. Since GDT was not a RIT student organization, the administration could not disband it. In the end, RIT President Al Simone resorted to prohibiting RIT organizations from assisting GDT. In the July-Dec 2004 issue of "Questions and Answers with Al Simone", President Simone outlined the steps the RIT administration would implement:
"I have decided that Institute property and resources will no longer be available for the production of Gracie’s Dinnertime Theatre. These resources include:
Computers and servers owned or supported by RIT.
The use of the HUB will no longer be available for the copying of the publication.
Funds from Institute accounts cannot be used to purchase advertisements in the publication."
The administration's steps to deny GDT access to Institute resources were necessary because GDT was _not_ a RIT organization, and could not be disbanded by the Institute. For this reason, it has no place on the RIT wikipedia entry.
B.) Does not fail WP:NPERIODICAL
As noted by user @U664003803, GDT was published on a regular schedule--initially being weekly during RIT academic year, and then as it's circulation expanded to include the University of Rochester and Monroe Community College, weekly during their academic year's as well (taking into account differing timings of holidays when RIT was on the quarter system while the other universities were on the semester system).
GDT, as a member of Hell's Kitchen (a 501(c)(3) organization founded by GDT to act as an publishing umbrella organization for it and affiliated publications) would go on the have articles distributed to university publications nationwide through Uwire, and had at least one article reproduced in USAToday through the distribution of content through Uwire.
GDT/Hell's Kitchen would also be recognized by the Independent Press Association's(IPA) "Publication of the Month". One of the founders of GDT would be interviewed by the IPA for an article.
C.) Reliable secondary sources include the D&C and RIT itself
The nominator acknowledges that the Democrat & Chronicle is a reliable secondary source. While the article in question is behind a paywall, that does not invalidate that the article is about GDT/Hell's Kitchen with a focus on their circulation and finances. While it should not be necessary, I am happy to provide a copy of the content behind the paywall.
Since GDT was never a RIT organization--again, it was distributed on three campuses in Rochester, NY--citations on the RIT website, including those from the RIT library archives, and Reporter Magazine, and commentary about artwork on campus, are secondary sources in relation to GDT.
The distinction between GDT and RIT is critical in understanding the notability of the publication: it was a student-founded publication that published, weekly during the academic year, for 10 years (1995-2005). It was never affiliated with RIT, the University of Rochester, or Monroe Community College, but was staffed by students (and alumni) from all of these institutions, and distributed on these campuses for the entertainment of those students.
As far as I know, there had never been an inter-collegic publication founded and run by students in Rochester, NY prior to GDT, and certainly none that engaged in that activity for 10 years. All other publications I am aware of in Rochester were either aimed at the population of Rochester, or were official student publications restricted to the university they were affiliated with. Kjoenth (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the USA Today source is a bare url [2] which does not work. Kjoenth are you able to find that reference please? We are saying the sources under consideration are:
-Democrat & Chronicle is daily newspaper published in Rochester, NY (two citations)
So the people doing it get a couple of mentions in the local newspaper.
-A blog entry by one of the founders is neither RIT nor the publication
I think this one fails as a self published source.
-A brand new 2.5hr audio history/interview of two of the founding editors
This is referenced to Reddit and YouTube. This doesn't look like an in independent secondary source. Was the interview broadcast anywhere?
-Independent Press Association
This ref looks good[3]. It would, however, be better if we had it in the source publication. This snippet is hosted on hellskitchen.org, along with most of the material referenced here, but that is a private domain owned by a an individual who avails themself of the privacy services afforded to private registrants and hosted by NameCheap inc - a low cost virtially hosted hosting service. This is problematic for most of the references here. Although there is no indication the snippet is anything but genuine, this would be how a hoax would be set up too. Presumably that snippet came from somewhere and we should reference that properly.
-USAToday/Uwire
As above, this bare URL reference needs addressing.
So, in summary, I think we need to do a bit more work to establish notability here, although there are potentially a couple of good sources here. If we can see what USA Today said, I may be closer to forming an opinion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a physical copy of the Independent Press Association writeup ("Cooking with Confusion in 'Hell's Kitchen'". Ink Reader. 1 (5): 3. November 1998.) I have not found a digital copy of that edition of IPA's "Ink Reader" on the web. The snippet hosted on hellskitchen.org is from "Ink reader". The IPA ceased operation in January 2007.
Similar for the USAToday/Uwire link, I have a hard copy printout of the original page. The material was USAToday reprinting an article. Unfortunately Uwire was bought in 2008 and suspended all wire services in 2009. Likewise USAToday did away with all the web pages that displayed reproduced material.
I am happy to provide reproductions of this materials in the talk, but ultimately what we are dealing with is link rot/material in physical form only.
Is the interview in Reporter Magazine (Boden, Jess (11 May 2001). "Life According to Gracies". The Reporter: 11. Retrieved 19 July 2023.) not an acceptable source? The argument I made was that, since GDT was not affiliated with RIT, RIT media count as independent sources. Kjoenth (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just link rot, it is that the bare URL refs do not tell us where the information can be found. Ref 7, which you describe properly here, is inaccessible but properly described. You could put a link to your copy in the url parameter to allow review, and then ref 8 needs to be described in the same way. I gather from the date that it is October 1998, so us that issue 4? That would resolve the issue with ref 8. It is not essential that refs are available online, but there needs to be enough information that the original can be found. Likewise with the USA Today article, all we have is the URL. If this was published in the newspaper, we can search for it in various archives, but at this point we do not have any information as to the date of publication. I have carried out newspaper searches for this article and have not found it, but I have been searching "Gracies Dinnertime Theatre." Is the reproduced article credited to some other name?
The next question is to whether these sources amount to sufficient evidence of notability per WP:NPERIODICAL. Those guidelines list 4 "presumed notability" guidelines, but I see no evidence it meets any of those. Not to worry though, because the guidelines are clear that it may still be notable if it passes WP:N, so we are looking at the general notability guidelines. To be presumed notable we are looking for multiple significant reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. We have potentially two articles in the IPA and one article potentially published in USA Today. It is not nothing, but it is not multiple, as per GNG either (because multiple from a single author, the IPA in this case, would be treated together).
Additionally I have questions about how significant publication in the IPA newsletter actually is. The IPA is a small (and possibly now defunct?) grassroots member organisation. If they carry an article about one of their members in a newsletter, this fails on the independent criterion. I can see they were granted money to do their work [4] and I am not saying they were unimportant as an association, but the notabilty guidelines require independent coverage. The USA Today presumably published an article without significantly addressing the source.
I also question whether any of these mentions are under the name in the article title, or whether the article is perhaps mistitled, but that point may be moot at this stage.
Although I am leaning delete here, I am reluctant to post that as a !vote. Is there an alternative to deletion here? You say it had no official status so it cannot be merged with the RIT page - yet if it were a recognised campus publication, I think it could be mentioned there. Or perhaps there are other places information could be merged? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy I'll go through the archives and pull up information about the interview with the IPA and the USAtoday link.
As for merging, I was initially dubious, but I now see the appeal of somehow merging into pages for RIT, the University of Rochester, and Monroe Community College. Since Gracies Dinnertime Theatre was staffed by students from all three campuses and distributed on all three campuses, it would have to someone be triply merged into them.
I joke, of course; that's an unreasonable action. Given RIT president Al Simone's position that GDT should not have access to any RIT resources, there is a sort of deliciousness at the idea of being merged into the RIT wikipedia page, though.
IPA is definitely defunct now, but with members like "Mother Jones" and "Bitch", calling it a grassroots member organization makes it sound much smaller than it was. Kjoenth (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MergeRedirect with Rochester Institute of Technology per the discussion above. I am sorry that I don't think it passes WP:GNG nor WP:NPERIODICAL, but there is some information of interest here that could be retained - certainly enough for a section on the target page. It is worth a mention that such a periodical existed, and how it was received (or not, as the case may be). The merge will also involve a redirect from this page that preserves this page history, should the situation change - although it seems unlikely it will change as it has ceased publication. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm not seeing a case that this passes GNG and that is the only criteria that applies. There was a promise to dig through archives to look for more material so holding off a decision to give for that but the sourcing needs to be evidenced to keep this. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!06:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources just aren't there, and the intervening discussion doesn't lead me to believe that there's more, viable sources out there. Currently, the sourcing is lacking enough that there isn't even anything we could merge. signed, Rosguilltalk15:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sadly I agree, and the fact the discussion went quiet leads me to the reluctant conclusion that merge is not really viable. I am striking my merge, but moving to Redirect as a WP:ATD. This would, at least, preserve the page history that might be mineable for a paragraph that might be added to the RIT page. Do you oppose a redirect? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:36, 10 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.
Weak delete Seems to generate coverage in Ghanaian media, but it's not strong coverage and mostly looks like recycled press releases from him, rather than objective articles written about him, for some external reason. The EMY coverage in particular: this is an event that he's behind, rather than an independent one which has recognised him. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though notability is not inherited, the sources provided state his contributions to the Ghana event industry, leading and overseeing major events. He is also a former musician with songs that top charts in Ghana. Siagoddess (talk) 12:29, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The previous two AfDs were started shortly after the event, so there may have been an indication of this being a lasting event. However, four years on it's clear that WP:LASTING is not met. This event, as sad as it may be, fails WP:NEVENT.
The sources in the article, albeit from global outlets, pretty much mimic each other: WP:DEPTH. Google searches for this event bring up very little beyond January 2019 outside of passing mentions (and sensationalist recounts), and the manslaughter charge (which I cannot find an outcome for, so it appears to not have been notable enough to report on the result).
Redirect to List of explosions per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS. All significant coverage appears to be from primary sources, which do not count toward notability. A full count of the keep !votes in both previous discussions shows that all but one of the keep !votes were "X people died" (WP:BIGNUMBER), "other explosions have articles" (WP:OTHERSTUFF), "it will be notable once information comes out" (WP:CRYSTAL), or "it was already at AfD" (WP:LASTTIME). The sole exception is one that provided primary sources. I will change my !vote if someone can find in depth retrospective coverage from multiple sources after there were no more developments in the story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some lasting effects as discussed in the Fr wiki article, one victim lost the use of their legs and asked the mayor of Paris for help when they ran for President, not sure how relevant it is. [5]. Gas explosions are routine, this wasn't Notre Dame that caught fire... Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having substantial persistent coverage in reliable sources, clearing the WP:NEVENT hurdles handily. Coverage on at least a national scale has continued even in 2023: BFM TV, Cnews. Here's a (regional) article from just a couple of weeks ago on the latest turns in the procedural saga. All quite in-depth -- although to be sure, at this point the story is more about the long battle over compensation and fault than about the explosion per se. Coverage over four years on a national scale appears ample to meet the WP:NEVENT provision for significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time.. -- Visviva (talk) 01:25, 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.
This is a non-notable theater company. Sources make passing mentions to the company, but do not describe it in significant detail sufficient for WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, right now I am a bit undecided but here is my analysis some of the citations:
Backstage (1) looks to only mention contact details. Starrymag (2) only mentions it in three paragraphs and has a link to their website at the bottom. Flavorpill (3) only mentions that it made Grand Delusion. Much the same story for Go Los Angeles (4) except they add a link to the bottom. Broadway World (5) covers more productions and where and when it was founded, however, it appears to more focus on individual people rather than the company. LA Stage Blog (6) covers the founding, co-producer, and Extinction. The insta page (14) is their own. With the amount that I covered only here, I almost cut down the citations in half. I might expand on this list later. ✶Mitch199811✶23:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Rodriguez is highly notable in my view. Now that leads us to examine his theatre company for which he is co artistic director with Brad Raider. When the theatre was founded neither were notable so there is no articles to its founding. However, it gets proper recognition now when it makes big moves (like buys El Centro Theatre) which was covered in LA Times and Variety as citied in this Wikipedia article. Also its New York production on Extinction was reviewed in the NY Times. This quite a notable theatre when it makes shows probably because of Roday. I should add it is also mentioned a good bit on The Psychologists are In with Maggie Lawson and Tim Omundsonhttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-psychologists-are-in-with-maggie-lawson/id1593693216 due to its high prominence within the Psych community. This issue we are dealing with here is probably most succinctly put in this comedy TVLine production at 3:30 when Dule Hill mentions Roday's most prominent works are AMLT, Psych, and this theatre https://tvline.com/news/tube-talk-james-roday-episode-3-video-psych-sequel-interview-984115/. I would highly recommend keep. Itsdannyg (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The actor is notable, but the theater company doesn't inherit notability from him. Likewise with the El Centro Theatre. The Variety and LA Times references make merely passing mentions of Red Dog. Podcasts are just podcasts. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree. But he is someone of high notability "offer-only" (i.e. doesn't have to audition to be on a TV show) that owns this theatre company. Shows want him because of who he is. Does that on its own make RDS notable? No. But put that in context with all the other facts makes it a relevant point to chew on. Also the podcast I mentioned is the creator of AMLT's podcast mentioning himself that Roday was offer-only. The podcasts here are official and not fan podcasts. Itsdannyg (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to James Roday Rodriguez. I can find mentions of RedDog but only in articles mainly about Rodriguez or specific productions. The company itself may or may not achieve notability, but until there are substantial sources about the company itself it doesn't meet the Wikipedia notability rules. If there is info here that isn't in the Rodriquez article it can be added there. If so, that could constitute a new section in the Rodriquez article and could give suitable weight to the company. Lamona (talk) 20:15, 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 no consensus without any prejudice against merging or renaming at editorial discretion. During the discussion a series of edits made to the list, sourcing each entry. After that the argument for keeping has become stronger, and the direction of the discussion has shifted. Still, I am calling this a "no consensus" rather than an outright "keep" because there remain concerns made early in the discussion over undue promotion of a technology that has yet to become commercially viable. However, the potentially decisive problem, lack of sources and references, was resolved. The remaining problems have other possible resolutions so deletion is not mandatory. Sjakkalle(Check!)12:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that a list of companies has no encyclopedic purpose, however this seems like it should be a list page similar to List of private spaceflight companies. There are lots of targets which need to be researched on whether they have reliable sources to support them before a decision should be made on this in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that I fit the description of a WP:SPA - I have an interest in a specific area, and as I am learning about it I am trying to contribute my knowlege to the wider community. I also disagree that this is any way 'promotion' - the article provides an opportunity for the community to give an unbiased and well sourced description of the industry. I have taken the list from an industry source - as far as I know they are not scammers. If they are, and you have something to substantiate that claim, then given that they are recieving so much funding that's probably a really important thing to cite in the article and a further reason not to delete it. Lemondizzle (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator that the table of "Commercial fusion companies" serves no encyclopedic purpose; I disagree with the recommendation for merging, because none of the rest of the content is worth it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not opposed to a straight delete (I did nominate the article, after all). It's possible that the "First fusion electricity to the grid" section could be a paragraph in the Fusion power article, without that weird section title, though. I'd be okay with a merge or delete, whatever. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly new here, so maybe I misunderstand how this works, but is there no opportunity for the article to remain (and be edited, and improved, and refined) for a period of time before people decide whether to delete it or not? There are lots of articles that are stubs and are given opportunity to fulfil potential. While commercial fusion is definitely a sub topic of fusion power, so are many other separate articles. I found the fusion power article to already be very unwieldy - lumping more things in there may not help with that article? Lemondizzle (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lemondizzle and Bapfink are probably sockpuppets or meatpuppets and new to Wikipedia. I don't think Lemondizzle's first edits show any more sophistication than my first edits as a registered editor -- after dozens of anonymous IP edits. Stuff like formatting tricks you can get just by looking at the rest of the page. A long-banned editor is more likely to play the drama boards like WP:ANI; new editors start with articles. I doubt they know all our rules yet -- please don't nuke them for now.
Disagree that a list of companies has no encyclopedic purpose - Wikipedia even has lists of lists of companies! See Lists of companies. The list provides a clear view of the approaches being pursued and the favored fuels. However more content would be useful, for instance describing or showing what progress they have made versus the big government funded projects. Bapfink (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because we have articles on other companies, some of which are organized into various lists, doesn't mean that this list serves any purpose or has any justification. Why is this a good way to explain the approaches being pursued or the favored fuels? XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, but I did create the article originally so that's not surprising. My rationale was that the term 'commercial fusion' is now widely used, and an objective Wikipedia article would be of value to anyone not familiar with the industry. This is important as a lot of hope is being pinned on these companies, and more importantly taxpayers in many countries (UK, USA, Canada, China...) are part funding them. Moreover, the online coverage is not always objective. Typically I find a wikipedia article useful to give me a balanced view of industries like this, but a simple search for commercial fusion turns up nothing of the sort (e.g., Google search for Commercial Fusion). I'm not particularly wedded to the list of companies which seems to be causing controversy - that list is just taken from the Global Fusion Industry report which I cited on the page. I thought it might serve well to link to all of the articles about the separate companies, and give an overview. I suggest deleting the list if it is deemed unsuitable, but don't delete the whole article. The article clearly needs work and contribution and insight from other users (as do so many other articles), but I thought that was the whole point of Wikipedia - we all contribute and work on an article, rather than have to post the finished article in version 1? Lemondizzle (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article currently serves little to no purpose overtop of existing fusion articles. Article as a whole is basically just an exemplar of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Zero prejudice against re-creation when fusion power actually practically exists. IceBergYYC (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 2 questions to address.
Notability: Commercial fusion is clearly notable. Notability is very well established by multiple reliable sources.[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].
Suitability: If this is a list article, is it suitable for inclusion per our Stand-alone lists guideline.
Is this list useful?
Yes, if you want to see what's going on with commercial fusion activity.
Are the 2 new editors likely linked to Vancouver-based General Fusion?
Yes.
Is that a conflict of interest?
Hmmm -- they've made a big list of …competitors?
They've got to be engineers. Marketing would never allow this.
Do we have this information anywhere else?
No.
Will a lot of the companies fail?
Yes.
Do many of them have serious financial and technical resources committed to them?
Definitely. Succeed or fail, collectively these companies are encyclopedic.
Note that our lists guideline requires that every company listed either needs its own article or it needs to be verified with a reliable source as qualifying for the list. So the list entries will need citations (note: cleanup ≠ deletion).
I find it hard to believe that an account with 11 edits (Bapfink) just randomly happened to stumble onto a deletion discussion for a really obscure topic and voted the same way as the article creator, 9 hours apart, when the article creator also has just 32 edits. That's a hell of a coincidence. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, otherwise merge per nom. I'm not seeing any policy-based rationale for deletion here, notwithstanding all the unedifying personal attacks on the article creator. Even the list appears to meet the nonexclusive criterion of WP:NLIST of having been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, see e.g. [17], [18], [19]. Even if they are all scammers, a list of scammers seems like a helpful and encyclopedic thing for Wikipedia to provide. -- Visviva (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fusion power and remove companies in the list not supported by reliable sources. Two policy-based reasons: First, Wikipedia is not about what companies will accomplish in the WP:FUTURE, and commercial fusion remains a future technology. Secondly, the focus only on privately run companies in the title of the article. Does it count as "commercial fusion" if the first nuclear fusion power generator design is worked out in a government-run lab and first offered by a public utility? Unclear. I don't think there is a blatant attempt to self-promote, but I think the discussion above shows there are some (possibly unrealized) implicit assumptions here that violate WP:POVTITLE at least. A neutral, encyclopedic framing of the topic would be something like Fusion research organizations. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 22:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since finding this AfD, I have been researching the companies on the list and adding references per our guideline. I've verified and cited 20 companies so far. Another 7 already have Wikipedia articles. I expect they'll all be done in the next several days.
WP:FUTURE:
This is a list of companies that have funding and have ongoing development activity. Wikipedia has articles on all sorts of science and commercial projects underway and not yet brought to fruition: super-tall buildings, lunar missions, stealth fighters, etc.
Public vs private activities
We already have an extensive list of mostly government and academic fusion experiments at List of fusion experiments. That article is already very long at 91kB; it's just short of our WP:TOOBIG limit of 100kB.
Self-promotion / POV
I don't have any sort of COI. These companies would never hire me.
Regarding WP:FUTURE, Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. New buildings/lunar missions/fighter jets are reasonably routine to produce, while commercial fusion is an endpoint that may not happen for *any* of the companies mentioned in the article. If the list of fusion experiments is missing commercial efforts backed up by reliable sources, feel free to add them - it's easy to WP:SPLIT if the list gets too long. On the other hand, starting a separate article that ignores the rest of the field of research is precisely the kind of WP:UNDUE problem I am trying to point out. Finally, I am not accusing anyone of COI; I am saying that calling what these companies are working on "commercial fusion" belies some rather debatable assumptions that might actually be false. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉
Deletecommercial fusion does not yet exist. There are some non-notable companies and articles discussing investment. I think that a list of companies proposing commercial fusion would suffer from a lack of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bejnar - take a look at the article as it is now, not several days ago:
Update I have spent a number of hours on this article. The are now 48 citations to reliable sources
All but 4 of the 53 companies have one or more reliable citations noting they are actively engaged in fusion work; there are 3 obscure companies I have left tagged as "[citation needed]" for now and another one I've tagged as "[better source needed]".
Some companies do not have plans to build working fusion reactors. They're either working on commercializing some necessary component or they are performing research under contract to someone else (most often the U.S. Department of Energy).
67% of the content in bytes and 87% of total edits now come from non-COI editors.[20]
Note also that the subject overall meets WP:GNG per sources in the article.
There is no worry about WP:FUTURE/CRYSTAL, this is about entities that are documented as "working on commercial fusion" in some capacity now. Whether they ever achieve it does not affect present day notability.
The context, the sources, and NLIST (from above) keep this firmly out of the realm of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
The context includes notes about failure to deliver on stated timelines, suggesting that this is not inherently a promotional list. More context can be added if needed, but the demonstration of context as improving the article is already present.
Keep The existence of this group of companies is at least as encyclopedic as as Barbenheimer, Vue International, or Alberta Investment Management Corporation, and arguably more so. The list is prima-facia evidence of breadth of the field and alternative ways of demonstrating breadth are difficult to reliably source (eg "15 companies include ZYX and Acme,..."). Whether ultimately successful or not, the quest for commercial fusion is notable. The problems of the article -- no context for the words in the boxes, a pointless chart for marketing guesses, lack of references pointing no commercial success, for examples -- are all things that could be repaired.
Rename to List of fusion companies. The guidelines for Lists are a lot more relaxed that for other topic areas and in the past, it is usually left to the subject-matter experts to determine the criteria for inclusion. In addition and in my opinion, the current title is promotional and spammy. HighKing++ 14:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Excluding non-independent coverage from her college and conference, there is no significant coverage available per my BEFORE search. Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:36, 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.
But QuickQuokka, #8 is not "Articles that fail to make it clear that their subjects meet the relevant notability guideline (RNG)" or similar; it's "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the [RNG]". An article can be crap but nevertheless be about a subject that could have been shown to meet the RNG if only the author(s) had had the needed competence and energy. Thus it's normal for the AFD nominator to state that their own energetic googling/duckduckgoing/etc has failed to demonstrate notability. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This wretchedly bad article, or perhaps its subject, has so far been condemned for lack of notability by QuickQuokka, Maproom, and Layah50; but none of these three editors, and nobody else, has yet claimed to have tried but failed to find sources. If any decent sources do exist, I can't assume that they call her "Sanjana Ganesan" (in Roman letters). I don't know what other scripts would be relevant here, I don't know how her name would be written in any of those scripts, and even if I found anything I'd have to depend on Google Translate and would have to guesstimate the reliability of the source. So I hope that energetic and linguistically competent (and of course level-headed) editors contribute to this AFD. I'm very willing to be persuaded that this should be deleted, and if it's deleted then it should be salted too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that too, looked like author first moved it to Draft while this AfD was still going on. It seems it got requested to move back here on technical move request, but I'm wasn't sure if the speedy request was from when was moved to draft, or if was after it got moved back. WikiVirusC(talk)17:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Considering the non-notability of the person in question, the article should be deleted. One can't be notable in the ground of notability of his spouse (Jasprit Bumrah) ::*Note: While scrolling through Google, I've found this article in Hindi Wikipedia, संजना गणेशन, albeit due to language issues, I am unable make out whether it contains enough stuff. জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:30, 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.
There is nothing to be found in the cited sources that this is in any way a noteworthy or special speech. Politicians give a million of them in thousands of venues. Coverage is routine and expected of a US President. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not go off script about Putin, not notable. I don't see anything about this speech specifically that needs merging, vis a vis just stating the US position on relevant issues in the summit article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draken Bowser (talk • contribs) 07:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially keep or find another target: the speech seems to received WP:SIGCOV well over a tune of meeting both WP:GNG, WP:EVENT guidelines, for example [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and etc pieces made in other medias, other than the news stories.
Glaringly, it also wasn't a part of the NATO Vilnius summit's program [30][31] and as such merging it with the event's article wouldn't be suitable as it is an independent, unrelated event. Respublik (talk) 10:32, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable former college soccer player who earned at least two caps for the Bolivia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I want to say Draftify because MonFrontieres does such a good job on these articles, and it's not inconceivable that she continue to earn caps in the future. JTtheOG (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find significant coverage of her in Bolivian, American, English-language or Spanish-language sources, only trivial mentions in national team selections and match reports. The general lack of content around the Bolivia women's national football team prevents redirects or other WP:ATD to capture anything about the goal or caps. If this is WP:TOOSOON, I also can't find even trivial coverage suggesting the player has been active anywhere since 2021, when she was rostered with Nova FC of United Women's Soccer (1; she's not on its USL W League roster in 2022). -Socccc (talk) 00:41, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Samantha Scarlette. The album only received some minor announcements about its release, with no pro reviews or deeper coverage to be found. Procedural note: My vote is to redirect because that is standard procedure for non-notable albums, but events will be made more complicated by a scattered pile of AfDs surrounding this musician that should have been bundled together. If the musician's article survives, the album titles will still be there as possible search terms. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:12, 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.
I'm not seeing notability for this singer, sourcing is all iffy (red/orange per sourcebot), and Gnews only has 3 pages total, mostly in relation to Aaron Carter. No charted singles, no awards won. The radio host job doesn't bring up much for coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was also deleted in 2014; if nothing has appeared in the last decade for notability, we likely won't find much either, but I'll leave the wiki folks here to work their magic. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has been around for a long time as a Jill-of-all-trades, relentlessly promoting herself as a musician, skateboarder, model, radio host, and who knows what else. The article is ref-bombed with directory entries, social media posts, self-upload promotional sites, credits for other people's works, and basic announcements of new releases. There is a lot of that stuff online, but I can find almost nothing that is reliable and independent. Hope she has been able to make a living, but the media just hasn't noticed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:34, 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.
Fails WP:GNG. Only notable for a few paragraphs, written by Samuel L. Clemens, in which Sellers is claimed to have been the first to use the pseudonym Mark Twain. Sellers is only discussed in two academic papers in American Literature and Mark Twain Journal, both in relation to Clemens' claim. This is already addressed fully is the main Mark Twain article, and not many details are known about Sellers for any substantial expansion to his article. 〜 Festucalex • talk19:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Sellers is only discussed in two academic papers" - not true. See "Mark Twain's Nom de Plume: Some Mysteries Resolved" ProQuest1306131770 (biographical details such as death), "A Proposed Calendar of Samuel Clemens's Steamboats, 15 April 1857 to 8 May 1861, with Commentary" ProQuest1306139746 (biographical details such as boats worked; reproduction of Sellers' monument; discussing a report that placed Sellers and Clemens together in 1880), "Samuel Clemens' Magical Pseudonym" ProQuest1290849714 (unearthing some Clemens-Sellers relationship; analysis), "From Sam Clemens to Mark Twain: Sanitizing the Western Experience" JSTOR10.5325/marktwaij.12.1.0113 (more of the same), Critical Companion to Mark Twain: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work (good amount of biographical information such as place of birth). Sellers probably died in 1864 and Clemens took the name in 1863. There is additional biographical information about Sellers -- such as his (il)literacy, captaincy, early life, migration west -- that is undue for Clemens' article and should not be repeated there. Significant coverage in several reliable sources, some of which is inappropriate for deletion or alternatives to deletion ... Urve (talk) 00:01, 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.
Merge into Ernest Hilgard. The current state of the article leaves a lot to be desired. Every significant claim is either left unsourced, or neatly ornamented with {{citation needed}}. The independent article gives undue weight to a theory that is poorly researched. However, a merge would appropriately re-frame the subject as a hypothesis by a notable psychologist, rather than a notable subject and theory in and of itself. Agentdoge (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to Ernest Hilgard, although that looks challenging to do. The ensuing redirect, however, should probably be pointed to Dissociation (psychology) (where both Jung and Hilgard get some coverage) per the principle of least astonishment. Alternatively, given that the merge is nontrivial, perhaps we could just redirect to Dissociation (psychology) and leave a pointer on Talk:Ernest Hilgard for any future editors who might be interested in figuring out whether and how to merge this content. -- Visviva (talk) 05:16, 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.
Delete. Unambiguously fails notability guidelines, despite the 7 sources for a single sentence that reads like the beginning of a curriculum vitae. Agentdoge (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Refs are either non-RS PR pieces, incidental mentions, written by the subject, or quote the subject. With only a few independent RS sentences about this individual, there is no basis to establish notability. Article was created by an editor blocked for Undisclosed paid editing, so probably promotional. Dialectric (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of these sources look slightly better than others, yet those ones don't provide SIGCOV. The rest seem promotional. DFlhb (talk) 19:45, 24 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable company, only sourcing is confirmation of funding and routine business activities. Gsearch is straight into their company's website, nothing in Gnews Oaktree b (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed a pile of promotional links, self-links, links that didn't back the claims, non-RS links and one that I think was AI-generated. No evidence this company passes WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a start-up company with a similarly-named browser security product. Considered as a company, the available coverage concerns funding and a recent survey sponsored by the firm [41], both of which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Considered as a product, the brief coverage in overviews of new browser security products seems some way short of demonstrating attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usually startups fail NCORP. Usually implies that exceptions exist. Occasionally there is a startup that is the talk of all media. I do not see that here. gidonb (talk) 15:06, 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.
It appears that this taxon is in use by the author alone - I can find exactly two cites, the work referenced in the article and this book. Now we don't usually have any issues with newly coined taxa at lower levels, given that they are validly published, but I don't believe that applies to these top-level unranked clades, which are more in the nature of a broad hypothesis than a taxonomic finding. I would suggest that some uptake beyond the originator would be required before we can have an article (even a sub-stub) on this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm inclined to agree. At this level, we need some kind of secondary or tertiary sourcing, or some WP:IS alternate source that confirms the thesis laid out in the only given source. UtherSRG(talk)17:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any articles citing the source paper that use the term, and the external link appears to be the first author's PhD dissertation, so the two sources aren't really independent. Maybe an article would be appropriate when/if this hypothetical clade is more widely accepted and written on. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this is a taxon that would need independent sourcing to find out whether the new grouping is valid or WP:DUE in that field. KoA (talk) 14:42, 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.
Delete Non-notable musical piece. If it had some sort of coverage for the TikTok thing I might look at keeping it, there is none. Doesn't meet any of the music criteria for notability. SALT as well, 3 times at AfD is getting silly. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Superficial (album): Found one article on the song from Dazed which I included in the target article, but that's all I could get. SALTing would be overkill for an article that has only been at AfD twice (one of those listed is clearly for a different subject altogether and shouldn't be there), especially when the latter is now after the song has had a viral moment and it makes sense that someone would throw an article up for it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Superficial (album) as suggested per QuietHere. I would agree that salting is a step too far for what it is, but this shouldn't be its own article unless it gets resurrected the same way that Fleetwood Mac's song "Dreams" was (see CNN) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:16, 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.
Delete, the one Billboard article is about all there is. Never charted, no critical attention in RS. Nothing we can use for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Between Billboard, Rolling Stone, and Pitchfork, I think it meets GNG/NMUSIC#1 handily. The two paragraphs on the song in Impact Magazine don't hurt either. Article does contain several unreliable sources which need clearing out though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Looking at WP:NSONGS, commercial success is not a criterion for notability, though NSONGS notes that it is a good indicator. The two main criteria which NSONGS suggests this article must meet are being the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works" and "there is enough material to write a reasonably detailed article".
The Billboard article passes this easily as the article is specifically about the song, leaving one more source needed for the song to be notable. Rolling Stone and Pitchfork are more marginal. While both are part of a "best of" list, NSONGS does not disqualify a source's significance due to that, it only does if the song's coverage is in the context of an album review. Rolling Stone does not mention the album at all, so it passes that burden. Pitchfork does and the song's entry seems to be in the context of the Weeknd and House of Balloons, so I do not think it passes that burden. We, therefore, have two sources with non-trivial coverage out of the context of the album, certainly enough for the song to be notable (albeit barely).
I also think a reasonably detailed article can be created from the sources here. The Impact & Critical Reception section seems well-sourced while the Composition section could be expanded using those sources. Cutting the unsourced part of that section, the article would be above stub length from those two sections alone. If I am wrong about that, I suggest merging and redirecting to House of Balloons if the song is only notable within the context of the album. ~UN6892tc21:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some edits to the article to cut down on the unsourced material and I think the article should be able to stand on its own based on the "Background and composition" and "Critical reception" sections. The material in the article now would likely be unbalanced if it were all in the House of Balloons article. There is some extra material I found from that article, which I will use to expand this one, though there is much less material placed in that article than here. Thus, I am a bit more confident in my keep vote, though I am not yet willing to stop classifying it as "weak". ~UN6892tc18:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG/NSONG. In the spirit of WP:THREE: significant coverage in Billboard, Rolling Stone and Pitchfork. I disagree with Username6892 above - NSONG only excludes coverage in the context of an album review, not any coverage which mentions the album. Given that the source is "The Top 100 Tracks of 2011" and the song itself gets significant discussion, I don't think it should be excluded. WJ94 (talk) 15:00, 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 three criteria of WP:BLP1E are met, indicating that we generally should avoid having an article on this person. (1) Reliable sources exist, but only cover her in the context of her involvement with Hunter Biden, (2) she otherwise is and likely will remain a low-profile individual, and (3) her association with Hunter Biden is not a significant event from an encyclopedic standpoint. WP:BIO1E states the general rule is to cover the event, not the person. I believe "the event" is sufficiently covered at Hunter Biden#Relationships. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability WP:NOTINHERITED. Sources mostly about her daughter and relation to Joe and Hunter Biden. GNG not shown, and has less chance of showing notability than her daughter's quickly deleted article. WikiVirusC(talk)15:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is about child support litigation against the son of the US President masquerading as a biography. The lawyer for the woman, Clint Lancaster, also represented the Trump campaign, the main rival to the US President in the previous and next election. The woman is not known for anything otherwise. The creator of this article also created the now deleted article about her daughter. This info is already covered in other Hunter Biden articles and there really isn’t anything else here. Fails WP:BLP1E and is an obvious WP:COATRACK. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "an American woman" is the lead? This is a smear article. Nothing at all notable here, she had a kid with someone famous. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a disruptive BLP page creation IMHO, the page creator previously created an article about the daughter and has been made aware of BLP policy concerns during extended talk page discussions at Talk:Hunter Biden and Talk:Family of Joe Biden. I'd close this as snowball myself, but I closed the child's AfD as snow, so I'll allow fresh eyes to assess this discussion. BusterD (talk) 04:04, 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 keep. WP:SNOW. Unlike the variants of the game, it is unlikely that this article about the base game will be deleted due to sources brought up in the previous deletion discussion. (non-admin closure)ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted a few months ago, still not seeing any new notability that's happened since the last AfD. This version of the game was anyway [42]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe that Freeciv is the same as FCIV.net, although they are related. The outcomes FCIV.net deletion discussions shouldn't affect this one. – Pbrks(t • c)15:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Come on... research. The prior AFD shows more than enough acceptable sourcing. Conflating different topics together, this AFD is just procedurally wrong. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 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.
This article was already nominated for deletion once, the consensus was to delete. A year later somebody recreated it. I don't see anything that has changed since the original deletion to justify maintaining this biography page. Citations in trade publications do not make a person notable. Rhombus (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person will be notable when his track record in his company (IFS AB) or thereafter becomes more significant. At present there do not seem to be enough verified facts to warrant a separate biographical article, and those that exist could be included in his company's article. My Gussie (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Financial Mail is a trade publication with a circulation (according to its Wikipedia page!) of ~19,000. A profile in a trade publication does not make a person notable. Is it a publication of record? Like a major national newspaper or financial newspaper? The trouble with magazines like this one is that they very often take money for publication. Also, it's one article. Is that all it takes to be notable enough to end up with a Wikipedia bio?
Let's remember that Wikipedia is often misused by people as an enhanced LinkedIn. There are providers who sell article generation and maintenance for self-promotion as a service. I think that's what is going on here, and we have a responsibility to fight that kind of misuse. Rhombus (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rhombus, is there a prohibition against reliable trade publications? Is there a requirement that a reliable source be a "publication of record"? Does this publication publish articles for money? If so, why do annual subscriptions cost 1440 Rand ($80 USD). They claim to be a national news site - is this false?
Comment: Rhombus, is there a prohibition against reliable trade publications? Is there a requirement that a reliable source be a "publication of record"? Does this publication publish articles for money? If so, why do annual subscriptions cost 1440 Rand ($80 USD). They claim to be a national news site - is this false?
Comment Business Live is the website of Business Day, a long established national daily newspaper, that's a WP:RS and the Financial Mail both founded in 1959. It is NOT a "trade publication", but a well-respected publication with a long pedigree. Park3r (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that a source be a "publication of record" - but it's a useful rule of thumb, and I mention it to encourage some thought about what it means for a source to be high-quality.
Paid-subscription publications take money for editorial content all the time, and if anything, this problem is getting worse, not better. This is especially true of trade publications. I don't yet see any evidence that this is a reliable source. The onus should be on the person citing to establish that a source is reliable. Rhombus (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thoroughly unremarkable businessman with run of the mill coverage. I would assume good faith on the part of the article creator however: usually the perps for paid-for vanity articles either have previous form or have done the few edits becessary before creating the lump of fluff.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TheLongTone, the article's creator, Cossde, has made 25,000+ edits over the last 15 years. The article they started looks well-referenced and neutral. (diff) They are not a paid editor.
@Rhombus, don't forget to notify the article's creator of this AfD.
I used the automated tools to post to AfD. I assumed the author would automatically be notified. If that did not occur, I apologise. Rhombus (talk) 09:15, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I declined an A7 tag on this article, as there appear to be numerous sources that suggest an encyclopaedic article could be written. However, the article has been previously deleted via PROD and speedy, and so I think we need a proper discussion over this. So have at it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the word "headquarted" now part of the English language rather than just marketing-bollocks-speak? I know that I got it taken out of published materials as the latter in a company where I worked in the 1990s, but maybe things have changed since then. The links from the company's own site pointed out by Eastmain just seem to be press releases and "30 under 30" fluff. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Forbes India article is actually a pretty decent source, but it's specifically about the business as a start up. It says Sanghvi worked for Deloitte... and Deloitte recognized his company? (That's a PR release). Got a review of two software - basically what we have is a lot of "this is startup to keep an eye on" type articles, which is very NOW, but not showing "ongoing media coverage" as described in WP:CORP. Denaar (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; see my rationale at WP:SERIESA. This kind of hair-splitting is frustrating when we know the article is clearly a promo and the company is not significant in any sense other than its existence as a normal business. I wish we could come to consensus on whether financial and business press alone can establish notability (in which case Wikipedia will be flooded with articles like this) or whether something else is needed. FalconK (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the presumption of nefarious editing on the part of article contributors is misguided. One can be very opposed to articles on companies that are less than a generation old and still critique those less so with good faith, and I'm seeing good faith in pretty short supply these days here, unfortunately. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SERIESA is only only essay written by just 2 editors. I looked and could find no evidence of public discussion about it such as an RfC. I could write a countervailing essay, grab another editor and, boom, WP:BIGTHOUGHTS, ready to cite at AfDs. Among other egregious misunderstandings of business, it asserts a company's bankruptcy or merger as routine events.
In another recent AfD, another editor made a good comment I'd describe as "WP:NOTMONUMENT":
"I get the desire to purge content that comes from seemingly impure origins, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not a monument to our personal discernment or high standards."
I think the only thing that is clear here, is that the other participants who have submitted a !vote have a significantly divergent interpretation of NCORP from yourself. Your interpretation is one that I would take issue with as well, and while it should really be discussed at a centralised location like WT:NCORP or WP:VPP, not here, I am finding it difficult to leave this without comment. For example, you point out: Among other egregious misunderstandings of business, it asserts a company's bankruptcy or merger as routine events, which, if it is a misunderstanding of anything, is clearly a misunderstanding of the WP:CORPDEPTH, which enumerates of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business. It's true, not every company that closes does so by going bankrupt. For them, it may well be the most significant event that has ever happened... For us? Is it narcissistic to say that it may not meet our well established standards on what is and is not considered significant coverage? Because it doesn't. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a bit of a mess, with lots of show-your-working research about where the company is located, etc.; severe copy-editing pruning would be needed if the article survives. Leaving that aside, to focus on whether notability is demonstrated: (1) we need to disregard company role announcements and 30-under-30 awards to individuals (even though the associated profile interview is largely about attainments and ambitions for this company); (2) the several industry awards appear to fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH rather than being inherently notable; (3) acquisition announcements also fall under trivial coverage. Basically, I am seeing enough to confirm that this is a firm as one of several in its logistics sector going about its business but I am not seeing evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per some (not all) of the refs Ceyockey added to the article that meet WP:RS. They're long enough. They explain what the company does and how it might change the logistics world. They explain what makes the company different from competitors and what makes it similar. WP:FORBES, not WP:FORBESCON, applies to the Forbes article, so it's reliable. My own searches using the links in the box at the top of the page turned up what appear to be more reliable articles. We don't do Google hits as a criterion but I mention this because I think there's more good stuff out there. I'm going away so I don't have the time to go through them or do a ProQuest search (via the Wikipedia Library, a wonderful resource for AfDs).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looks like the script didn't transclude things on the last relist so I'm going to manually relist this and transclude to today's log. I am involved so feel free to close immediately but I'd consider this mostly procedural in nature. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. These guidelines require at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Nothing here even comes close. HighKing++ 17:02, 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.
Fails WP:NSONGS. While the song seems to have made some component charts (not official national charts), there isn't any coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Today, while reliable, is an NBC show and doesn't count as a secondary source for coverage of a performance on another NBC show. NØ13:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, never charted and no coverage outside of the one performance. I was looking into NBC, they don't own the record label she sings for, Sony does. It's not cross promotion having her on the show, so less of a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article survives this process, its title should be swapped with Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), which is currently a redirect to the parent album. All that disambiguation is unnecessary and awkward, and there would no confusion with other things at Holiday (disambiguation). See the article's infobox too. (This is not a comment on the song's notability.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG, so NSONG is not necessary. Note that I saw this page creation in the new pages feed and reviewed it. When the nominating user changed the page to a redirect, I figured I'd put the investigation I did during the new page review to use to add sources and restore the page. I found:
There's approximately 100 words of SIGCOV dedicated to the song, published 2 years after the song, in a biography of the band Earth Wind & Fire, published by University Press of Mississippi, titled Do You Remember? Celebrating Fifty Years of Earth, Wind & Fire
There are probably a 100 of the band's songs covered in the biography, it does not impart individual notability to all of them as this does not constitute standalone coverage. The one line about how "the song embodies EWF's classic sound, with pulsating horns and a funky bassline" can be extremely comfortably accomodated on the album article.--NØ04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an independent, reliable source covers a 100 of a band's songs does not prevent it from imparting notability from a particular song if the coverage of that song is significant enough. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hollywood Life article is about 150 words of SIGCOV of various aspects of a performance (with further coverage of the album, not counted in the word count)
The Hollywood Life is a pathetic and unreliable tabloid imo that should never be used as a source. Shocklingly, one user at RSN considered it reliable but even that discussion seems to have concluded it should not be used to gauge notability.--NØ04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Today.com article is a few hundred words of SIGCOV addressing visual aspects of different performances of the song, including a music video, and does seem to be independent of the subject of the article (the song).
I believe I have already covered why the Today source does not count as a secondary source for the purposes of notability, for their coverage of a performance on another NBC show.--NØ04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Today does not count as a secondary source for this song. The song is not owned by NBC and so Today is a secondary source with respect to coverage of the song. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Holidays is undoubtedly in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and what not. Certainly the song and article should be continually maintained in soing to offer an illustration of such notability. Scriber88 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the charts you have mentioned are "national or significant music or sales charts". They are component charts which could do with a mention on the album article. Also see WP:NOTINHERITED for arguments to avoid during a deletion discussion.--NØ04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the keep votes above is the creator of the article and the other "restored" it before this AfD. The pile-on keep votes with flawed arguments should be weighted accordingly.--NØ04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan, I think it's predictable that an article creator would arguing for keeping an article they created in a deletion discussion. But they can participate in AFDs just like any editor. I don't see that their work on an article discounts the argument they are making in a discussion. I disagree when in some other AFDs an article creator's comments are tagged as if that means they are less important than other people's opinions. LizRead!Talk!22:43, 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. Consensus is he doesn't quite meet notability. If a redirect target evolves, happy to provide the history but that isn't currently the case. StarMississippi03:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Government official. That means notability. There might not be a lot of press around him, but by virtue of his position and for the record to be kept on Wikipedia, it’s a strong keep. I think sometimes we forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a popularity contest. Amaekuma (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. On the one hand, there is realcoverageof this guy, possibly enough for a presumption of notability under NBASIC, although the sources for state-level Nigerian politics can be a bit challenging to evaluate. Not all fluff, either. And his status as a young commissioner who had to wait two years for a full appointment due to age restrictions is significant in the context of age restriction reforms in Nigerian politics. A pity he didn't end up running in the 2023 federal elections, as a win there would have resolved the matter. (He was endorsed by the party but wasn't on the ballot, for which I can't seem to find a clear explanation.)On the other hand: this article and the three previously created-and-speedied versions at Mark Okoye show a strong pattern of promotional abuse, which I think should be taken into account in an otherwise somewhat borderline case like this, and especially when evaluating whether sources are likely to themselves represent some form of promotional abuse. As to WP:ATD, I am not seeing a plausible redirect target. There doesn't seem to be a logical place to mention him as a former commissioner in the Anambra article. If we had an article on ANSIPPA that might work a little better as a target. I initially leaned toward draftification, but on reflection I think any future article might be better off starting fresh. In sum, applying the rules flexibly in view of both our encyclopedic purpose and the central importance of being able to provide neutral coverage, particularly where living people are concerned, I am not convinced that an encyclopedic article on this subject is viable at this time. -- Visviva (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely baffled how you come to the conclusion that a national publication's 500+-word non-interview article directly on someone's accomplishments that details his win as "Africa's Young Person of the Year" isn't SIGCOV, and yet 3-4 sentences kludged together from a couple utterly routine local news reports on a low-level footballer is a GNG pass??! JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, let’s try to not get off topic. Comments should stick to the merits of Okoye’s article only, not other users’ opinions of unrelated utterly routine local news reports on a low-level footballer.FrankAnchor02:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with Visviva's very good assessment of the situation. The original author has been WP:INDEF'ed, adding to the case that this is just another attempt at self-promotion, and also making draftifying pointless. Mark Okoye was WP:SALTed so this article would seem to be an attempt to circumvent page creation protection. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~09:10, 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.
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given (but see article talk page). PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. There are databases that contain as many Chinese journals as possible, but those are obviously not selective. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of digital object identifiers for an academic publication is not a good sign, I believe. It's possible Chinese language sources exist to establish notability, but I can't find anything in English. I considered we might redirect to Hainan Medical University, since the two share very similar names (海南医学 versus 海南医学院) but I see no mention of the university on the journal's website [44] so they may not be connected. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 00:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit12:32, 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.
This is tagged for copy edit but the actual problems aren’t grammar/spelling/etc. The citation tag is correct though, as they are either not present, primary sources, or unverifiable. I can’t find better sources (WP:V), and I’m not sure the topic is actually notable per WP:EVENT~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?)11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a couple of sources including this, and while some change is necessary, the topic seems notable to me. I can see a case for the article's name being changed.JohnmgKing (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's try another relist to see if we can come to a consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!*13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not the best put together article in the world but I'm convinced (particularly by the excellent article at Purdue's Branch) that it's not only a thing but that the presumption of notability exists. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 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.
No significant coverage can be found for this organization. What news can be found is either in the form or press releases, or negative coverage about their questionable fundraising practices and costs. But even then, they are not especially notable as a bad charity; it's just that that is the only thing they are even minorly notable for. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!11:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is doubtful that Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts is relevant. UBCF has received coverage as a "bad charity", but only in the context that there are many bad charities, and UCBF is one of them. No coverage about their poor fundraising practices has focused solely on them and any particularly heinous criminal act. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!11:39, 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.
for having notable upper-class patients (WP:INVALIDBIO).
for having been offered a Baronetcy twice (both times refused). This itself indicates that perhaps the subject was notable at the time, but there doesn't seem to be any information out there to back that up, other than him being a well-regarded doctor. At least one of those times it sounds like he was a backup choice: "Dr Tupper had twice refused a baronetcy. In 1817 he had been offered by his friend Lord Liverpool the reversion of a baronetcy refused by his brother, Peter Carey Tupper (who had distinguished himself as British consul at Valencia and Barcelona). This he declined because he was the junior partner in his medical firm and did not wish to provoke jealousies among his seniors. In 1829 the Duke of Wellington renewed the offer in regard to Dr Tupper's own services, which had by then placed him at the head of his profession. Again the honour was refused, apparently because the doctor doubted whether the family fortune was sufficient to sustain it, and felt that the arrangement might be detrimental to his four younger sons." Hudson (1949), p. 53
for being a member of significant societies: but Wikipedia certainly doesn't have a biography of everyone who was ever an FRS or FGS.
Currently the article sources are mainly primary or relate to his son, in which Dr Tupper is only mentioned in passing. His son's main biography and autobiography don't contain anything that indicates Dr Tupper was particularly notable. It doesn't help that his famous son is also called Martin, but I haven't managed to find anything else.
Keep. A Fellow of the Royal Society clearly qualifies per WP:ANYBIO #1. Wikipedia certainly doesn't have a biography of everyone who was ever an FRS or FGS. No, but it probably eventually will have (being as Wikipedia is a work in progress). I don't recall any FRS ever being deleted at AfD. It's the most prestigious learned society in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing this submission. Being an FRS certainly counts as an honour, but as per those guidelines, it doesn't guarantee that the person actually is notable. I think the lack of any other sources speaks to a lack of notability, and that being an FRS is not in itself notable.
His page on the Royal Society doesn't show anything: no associated archives, activity, or sources. Even his nomination doesn't name anything:
Martin Tupper Esqre FGS residing at No5 New Burlington Street, a gentleman much attached to Science, and particularly to Chemical Science, being desirous of becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society, we the undersigned do, from our personal Knowledge, believe him to be highly worthy of that Honor
Keep, FRS is enough on its own, but one has to remember that in the 18th C, those who were developing science were a small and intimate circle, of which this gentleman is an acknowledged member, accepted into a very select group by his peers who were laying the foundations of modern knowledge.[50] He wasn't Humphry Davy, but it is quite correct that we should record who he was, as secondary sources have done. Elemimele (talk) 21:14, 1 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.
Pure speculation by military fans in India, sourced only to two definitely not RS fansites (defenceview.in and theigmp.org, neither of which provides a source for what they write, or even the name of the author) and an official PDF that only says that India at some time in the future would like to build 5-10 new destroyers, but with no other details. So everything in the article is just pure speculation, just like previous attempts to create an article about future "super duper best in the world ever" destroyers for the Indian Navy (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project 18-class destroyer...). When and if India comes up with a new destroyer, and official information from reliable sources becomes available, it could be worthy of an article, but as it is it's just military fancruft. Drachentöter001 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absent solid sources (@Flyhigh2020: please stop adding forum threads as references; user-generated content is not helpful). I'd be amenable to drafitying per Oaktree above, but in any case I can't really see a way for this to stay in article space based on the identified sources. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make one thing clear first, unlike Developed Nations in the West, Critical Military R&D in India is still handled by Government Organisations (DRDO) & DPSUs (BEL, HAL, BDL). And since India is a Developing Nation, Public Welfare, Healthcare & Infrastructure development comes first & foremost in the priority of the government. PR for Defence R&D of a product that will be developed 5-10 years down the line comes last. The current ISRO Chairman confirmed the same in a recent YouTube interview with Gareeb Scientist :
https :// youtu . be/SO06qo6UyBY
As such, we have no option but to depend heavily on insider scoops. Many reputed websites like Livefist, Alpha Defence & IDRW (Except for the Opinion Articles written by Guest Writers) have reliable links inside these organisations & provide trustworthy information on these topics. I have even seen DRDO mentioning such articles in many of their documents. One such document referers to the NGD :
If I am correct, this Wikipedia page was created only after the official handle of the Indian Navy released a clipping in Twitter on their Next-gen Combat Management System. That video featured warships so large that they can't be anything but the initial (yet official) renders of the NGD :
All the recent articles & videos you'll come accross in the internet on the P-18 NGD are centred around analysing this very video released by the Indian Navy :
The video you linked to, and that the entire article obviously is based on, is about a future "Combat Management System" showing images of generic modern destroyers, not about a next generation Project 18-destroyer for the Indian Navy, making everything in the article pure speculation. Which is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia's rules (see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR), which are the same for everyone, and not different sets of rules for "Developed Western Nations" and "Developing Nations". If there are no reliable sources there should be no article. Period. Drachentöter001 (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, we have our own set of reliable sources and we are happy with them. Multiple RFIs have been floated (127mm Naval Gun) & Critical Components made (LRMFR, HSTDV, AD-1, AD-2), like pieces of a puzzle coming together.
But if Wikipedia is run by it's own sets of rules and regulations, and the word 'Reliable' is defined differently, any article that violates them must be put to the Trash Bin.
In a few years, official data on this project will come and someone will have to create the exact same page from scratch. I don't really care about it that since I won't be editing on this platform anymore for multiple of it's inherent issues (some of which aren't related to this).
But still it would've been better if, instead of deleting it outright, all the sources added in this page were deleted and "This Page Contains Unverified Information" tag was added on top.
But I guess that that can't be done according to the rules, so delete it without any further delay. If Wikipedia can't accept it, we have no problems whatsoever. Both NGF & NGD will still happen anyway. Cheers ! Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weak Draft. At present it has almost zero properly referenced content, with which it would be reduced to a single sentence, which could be based on this] and this. All the rest is speculation and synthesis, failing both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH. Much is predicated on an unsupported assumption that the ship shape, used to illustrate something else in an Indian Navy video, must be Project 18. Proper maintenance of Future of the Indian Navy will indicate when an article can emerge, and what its content can be. Davidships (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A new next-generation destroyer, sometimes dubbed Project 18, is expected to be much larger and provide a further jump in technology by employing directed energy weapons, high-power sensors, longer-range cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles. Conceptual studies are still underway, but there will be more Indian-built content in the newer classes than in prior ones. Mifiin (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It won't change anything, but since someone relisted it, I am providing another link for the generosity.
The Indian Navy has allotted adequate funds in the R&D for the NGD, so that it has the latest sensors & can match the weapon density of the PLAN Type-55.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
delete Creating this was the act of WP:RECENTISM, and illustrates why the race to create these articles is misguided and results in unencyclopedic content. Now, nearly every chain is a online grocer, and things get pretty vague around the edges: is nuts.com an example? Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe I agree that the problem with the article is that it's rooted in a specific period of time...but I'm not sure that is the same as WP:RECENTISM which has to do with breaking news and such. It took decades for online grocers to become feasible. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTTEMPORARY, there is nothing special about online grocery anymore. In 2014 it was a novelty (I guess; don’t really remember or care what the state of online shopping was in my tweens); then in 2020 is was OMG COVID CHANGING THE WAY WE LIVE FOR EVAR; now it’s hard to remember when this wasn’t a thing. In 1910 an exhaustive List of automobiles would have made just as much sense, but even just 10 years later it’d start to look ridiculous. Dronebogus (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the most salient point is that this list is already adequately captured by clicking on the Category "Online grocers"; there's no need for a duplicate list that has to be updated manually. I do wonder if there are sources cited in this list that could be referenced in the main article for online grocers (which could use a bit of TLC), but maybe these references also have a short shelf life. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but limit to companies that started out as online grocers – Then, adjust Category:Online grocers to reflect this. Adding an edit notice stating this as a requirement would keep the article in check. The list would be a great deal shorter, but it would provide valuable info for readers. North America100010:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be a defining characteristic? Whether you started with a single physical location or online, does it make any difference? Why not just list those who only have online groceries, no physical location at all? What about those who sell other things online besides food? DreamFocus11:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think you are on to something @Northamerica1000, but pragmatically I think we need to fix the main article for online grocers first, and then consider whether the re-creating the List page (with some kind of narrower criteria) makes sense. In any case, online grocers needs a complete rewrite (there are parts of it now that make no sense, completely understandable given that this was history being made as the article evolved over time). Cielquiparle (talk) 23:55, 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.
Reception for the subject shows no notability, in fact it could be more seen as reception for the game itself. Doing a WP:BEFORE shows that's the case across the board: any discussion is strictly in the context of the game and its story, and not a proper examination or discussion of the character. While there's some discussion about a possible character list, I feel what's here is fine to redirect to the parent game for now, and any usable reception cited in it if workable. Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator keep Standalone notable character, passes GNG. Kill Screen has 4 paragraphs discussing Toriel as part of an article about video game moms. The Greatest Stories Ever Played: Video Games and the Evolution of Storytelling has multiple pages discussing Toriel and how the possibility of killing her is given more impact due to the preceding events. The Game Designer's Playbook p.58-59 also has several paragraphs talking about how she is a good tutorial that sets up herself as a boss. Ethics at Play in Undertale, a paper with 11 citations, has numerous pages discussing Toriel starting at page 2. I think even ignoring all the other sources, these prove that it does not need to be merged, though there are definitely many other book mentions due to her boss fight's prominence as one of Undertale's most well-known moments. Her article is not the most well developed at the moment, but WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:NODEADLINE. AfD is not the right place for a reckoning for any notable character below a certain standard. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you yourself are pointing out the very observation I made: the sources focus on how it acts as a tutorial for the game itself and the significance in that context. The slight outlier is Kill Screen, but even there it's framed in the context of how the game subverts your expectations and primarily relays what we already learn during that sequence. The rest can be used just as easily for the game and don't define her importance as a character *outside* of that game itself, or any study of her character or design. The article could just as easily be written "Undertale tutorial" and achieve the same results, and express just as little notability separate of the game itself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Toriel IS the tutorial. It's in the name. Unlike most games, in Undertale it's intrinsically linked to a character, where she is directly giving the protagonist advice on how to play, framed diegetically within the game's universe. I would not agree that it's only about "Undertale tutorial" due to how completely the character encompasses the tutorial segment. For the entire Ruins (i.e. tutorial) part you are mostly talking to her, and she disappears for most of the rest of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm not convinced that there is much to Toriel that isn't tied into the game, based both on what is there and my source search. To me, it's telling that all but one article is about Undertale. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Fictional characters need to make an impact on the outside world to be notable. Despite being a major character in the beginning and at the very end, I'd say this character's role in the game is about as impactful as Sans, Papyrus, Undyne, or even Alphys. The sources are good for a merge to "Fandom" under the "Cultural impact" section. I do not think it warrants an entire article though. Conyo14 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lede summarizes how the character impacted the outside world - "The character has received attention from critics and fans for her personality as well as the atypical moral choice of her boss battle." And, as shown in reception, "Nathan Grayson of Kotaku stated that while he killed Toriel during his playthrough, his encounter with her made him cry due to her friendliness and relatability as a character." This is real-world impact without a doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that she had an impact, I disagree it warrants an entire article. I feel this can be condensed to the section of Undertale. The rest is plot (primary or tertiary source material only). Conyo14 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively. Extremely bloated, especially with in-universe story stuff. Some mentions of the important stuff in the gameplay (the tutorial) and a shout-out in the games reception section is plenty. Sergecross73msg me13:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article called List of characters in Undertale or Characters of Undertale, and merge to a section there. The notability of Undertale characters as a group is sky-high; I'm sure we could have enough critical, sourced commentary for such an article to be valid. While I'm not sure Toriel stands alone, I think there's absolutely enough material for her to have her own section on a list article. (I'm not a fan of the recent move away from such list spin-off articles... I think they can work very well as a compromise when there's clearly notability-as-a-group but that doesn't easily rise to giving one specific character their own article.) I think that "merge" votes to Undertale as a whole would result in either the Undertale article being overstuffed with character detail, or valid referenced material getting lost. SnowFire (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion here about such a character list, and while it was considered a decent idea concerns that it'd just end up a coatrack article were also raised. In this case I think the relevant information from this article merged into the game wouldn't cause a massive bloat however, as really the most that needs to be carried over is the tutorial reception which can be retooled towards them game easily.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think COATRACK is a good analogy. A section about a character of Undertale, in an article called "Characters of Undertale", is perfectly on-topic. COATRACK is about "sneaking" in content from something non-notable into something notable, like if the article Music of Undertale had a long section about some minor collaborator with Fox on the music and their life story. The valid concern would be complying with WP:LISTCRIT and WP:CSC - but "notable as a group, but individually non-notable" is one of the direct examples in CSC that would justify inclusion of Toriel as a section. To be sure, I assume that the worry is really "what if this includes every single character, including Bob the Temmie," but that's just common sense & maintenance. SnowFire (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well might be a good discussion to elaborate on in that discussion I linked. I do think here though Sergecross is right: the article is bloated, and very little needs to be copied over, and a concern that a character list should be made to WP:PRESERVE the info is minor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Undertale or a separate char list. Lack of significant dev details and reveption puts her in context of the game rather than as a standalone char. Masem (t) 15:16, 24 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the content fails WP:SYNTH. The arguments in favor of this view have been addressed by the "keep" side only to a limited extent. Instead, they mostly argue that the topic is notable, which is beside the point, because non-notability is not the reason for which deletion is sought. This means that the article can be recreated if this is possible with different, non-OR content. Sandstein 07:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article cannot be rewritten into an article respecting WP policies, since there are very few, if any, successful applications of artificial intelligence to mathematics. On the opposite, there are many application of mathematics to artificial intelligence. So, the article title does not respect WP:NPOV, by suggesting that a minor aspect of the relationship between artificial intelligence and mathematics is the major one.
Before being a true article, the article was a redirect to computational mathematics, where artificial intelligence is not mentioned. As there is no other convenient target for transforming this article into a redirect, the only acceptable solution is to delete this article. D.Lazard (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@D.Lazard:"suggesting that a minor aspect of the relationship between artificial intelligence and mathematics is the major one".
The article's title simply reflects its focus -- the use and role of AI in mathematics -- and does not assert that this aspect is the most significant or the only one. Its existence doesn't diminish or overshadow the value of other perspectives, such as "Mathematics in Artificial Intelligence". Its presence doesn't negate the need or value of the other articles, which people are free to write. These articles exist to provide separate, focused information. Significance is not a zero-sum game. As a live example, consider Artificial intelligence in government. The title does not imply the application of AI to government is more important than of the government's role in regulating or promoting AI.
Only by deliberate policy distortion could you understand my statement "My intention is to provide a balanced, verifiable exploration of AI's role in mathematics" as an intention to provide WP:SYNTHESIS. If I were to be more careful with words I would have said something like "The intended purpose of the article is to provide a useful paraphrase from verified secondary sources."
Over the recent years deep learning has found successful applications in mathematical reasoning. Today, we can predict fine-grained proof steps, relevant premises, and even useful conjectures using neural networks.
Concerning possible objection that contents of the article can be incorporated into other articles: Computational mathematics is a very poor fit for redirection, since it is almost entirely used in the sense of "numerical modeling and simulation". Nor is Automatic theorem proving appropriate as there is more to AI applications in mathematics than automatic deduction. There is also automated inductive reasoning/conjecturing, as one can see from the review articles, or the essay by Terence Tao given below. Note specifically that it is not limited to formal verification or automatic theorem proving ("The 2023-level AI can already generate suggestive hints and promising leads to a working mathematician and participate actively in the decision-making process.").
Comment The first article ("Advancing mathematics by guiding human intuition with AI") is certainly an interesting case study. I am not sure we can infer much from this about AI in mathematics in general though. In case people did not notice, of the list of authors three seems to be academic mathematicians (who presumably provided the required mathematical background for posing the problems examined). All the other 11 authors were employees of DeepMind. So this really reads as an advertisement for the company's capabilities more than anything else, more than an analysis of AI in mathematics in general. As for the NY Times article, I can't comment as it is behind a paywall.
comment (somewhere between "delete" and "needs a major cleanup and focusing"). The first section, and the above comments, about AI aiding in generating new conjectures, or suggesting proof strategies fits with the title. Is it significant and written about enough for its own article? Maybe... The second section I do not understand the relevance. As I read it, it says that a mathematical technique TTT is used to solve mathematical problem PPP. The link is that technique TTT is also used in AI? But that just means that some mathematical theorems are useful in many areas of mathematics, which is no news, that's just normal in mathematics. In short: the first section may have potential, the second section seems irrelevant, it is mathematics beeing mathematics (not AI involved). One problem (on the article, or on my reasoning) may be a lack of clear definition of what AI is, beyond the enthusiasm of the day. - Nabla (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Note that deleting this may itself be a form of recency bias. Buzz around (a few specific use cases of) AI does not change the fact that historically, AI has been heavily involved in math. This is not WP:SYNTH, and probably just needs a bit of care. I don't prefer it but a possible alternative merge to automated reasoning but if done with care it might suffice. —siroχo20:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the fact that historically, AI has been heavily involved in math"
This "fact" is rather disputable! To say the least, the article's current phrasing "Its use has transformed the way mathematicians approach problems, understand abstract concepts, and conduct computational mathematics" is an extreme overstatement which is not borne out by the article's content. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The boundaries of what counts as "artificial intelligence" are both vague and time-dependent (and lately it has become little more than branding), so the scope of any article with this title is unclear. Computer algebra is an encyclopedic topic, as is computer-assisted proof, but "artificial intelligence in mathematics"? Not so much. We should aspire to be something better than a junk drawer of stuff mentioned at HackerNews. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to computer-assisted proof (not sure how much there is to merge that isn't already covered in that article). I think the nom's interpretation of the article creator's intent is rather uncharitable, but the definitional problems pointed out by various contributors above are real and likely fatal at this stage. It seems noteworthy that most of the sources that purport to be about AI and mathematics actually end up talking about fairly narrow and specific applications. Perhaps in the future there will be enough scholarly debate around what "AI" actually means in the context of mathematics to support an article on that topic. -- Visviva (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Visviva. I'm not completely comfortable with this merge for a few related reasons. First, automated reasoning seems like a more general possible target. Relatedly, historically, the meaning of AI was a bit different. Formal logic led pretty directly to the field of AI and the line between automated reasoning and AI was almost nonexistent. We now think of AI as something that gets close to passing a Turing test or even AGI. But for decades that was not what the field of AI was really focused on. This leads to my last point. I worry that we may be seeing a recency bias towards "new" AI rather than covering the entire field of AI. What do you think? —siroχo03:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are good points, and it's definitely not my field, but I am struck that the three mentions of "mathematics" in automated reasoning are either about computer-assisted proofs or old-fashioned proofs with no connection to computers. That still leaves me thinking that computer-assisted proof is the more precise target here. That said, I came into this discussion expecting to support a WP:TNT deletion to allow for the creation of a broad-concept article (BCA) here, since articles on these large, slippery topics are hard to write from scratch -- and represent something of an exception to WP:PRESERVE since IMX they are even harder to rewrite from a bad start. I still don't think that such a deletion would be a bad outcome here. But unless someone is volunteering to take a crack at a BCA right now (which is definitely not supported by the sources currently on hand), to my inexpert mind, it seems the referenced content we actually have here is substantially about computer-assisted proof, so my inclination is to merge whatever's mergeable to that article, and hope that something fresh might eventually sprout from the redirect. -- Visviva (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for going in-depth on your opinion! I think these are fair points about a BCA, though I'm a bit more optimistic that what we have being able to evolve into one. I don't think I have it in me to start a BCA right now, but I am also less uncomfortable with the idea of the suggested merge. I'll think on whether I want to change my !vote, but at the very least it's a bit softer now. —siroχo04:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the second half of the article is at all relevant to AI. Two of them are just algorithms in the same way that Gaussian elimination or the Euclidean algorithm are algorithms, just step by step processes. The third is just a kind of mathematical object like a group or a field is a kind of object. There are no sources indicating their special connection with artificial intelligence. And the first half is mostly related to automated theorem proving. I think an article by this name could be interesting and could use some of the material cited above in this discussion. But the article as is does not have notable material.Brirush (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Not every algorithm is AI, and not every news piece that has an AI in its title is about AI. Besides, current AI is just a neural net, do we want an article about "neural nets in mathematics"? Artem.G (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — since reliable sources have been found above talking exactly about
Redirect to computer-assisted proof - I'm persuaded by Visviva's arguments regarding the centrality of CAP to our coverage of AI in mathematics on Wikipedia. This is without prejudice to recreation if academic coverage of AI in mathematics that treats it as a subject cohesively, not just addressing the application of individual AI technologies in math. signed, Rosguilltalk04:53, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable, newly-opened restaurant whose sources are quite local (meaning they fail WP:AUD). All are written like advertisements, as is the article. This article was created too soon. There's no evidence that this is notable in the long run or at the present time. In addition, the sources lack WP:SIGCOV; the only acceptable coverage is in one source, which contains a few sentences about the history of the location before the restaurant was established (which also happens to be an interview), yet lacks anything meaningfully usable about the current restaurant. (side note: this was established by the same couple who established No Mafia). Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The interior of the restaurant has exposed plaster walls, mosaic-tiled floors, linen valance curtains." Oh, good GRIEF. WP:AUD; fails WP:GNG. Hyper-local interest, see no claim to any enduring or major impact on the culinary arts. The others should go as well, IMHO. The redirect idea would be kind. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 10 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.
Keep — I can’t find the specific record of it, but over a year ago, the nominator was ok with adding information to tornado summaries if the tornado caused over $1 million in damage. Nominator is also the one who AfD’ed the previous version, which led to an RfC, which actually led to the “condensed” version mentioned being factually inaccurate, but perfectly allowed due to the WP:VNT mentality. Doesn’t fail notability. In fact, it stays perfectly in line with the RfC, which the nominator’s original AfD nomination was about back in March 2023. Deleting this means we should also delete List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes for being a niche topic (list starting at 1 billion). A list for costliest tornadoes of the year at $1 million seems to be an acceptable number. After all, out of over 1,100 tornadoes, only 41 make the cut. I completely support keeping this article, but I do find it odd and suspisious that the nominator of this AfD happened to be the nominator of the other AfD as well as a click-starter to the RfC which basically ended costliest disaster lists for tornadoes…Well…at least makes Tornadoes of 2022 permanently inaccurate, but within Wikipedia standards per that RfC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the creator of the list just said in the above comment that a condensed version of the list is inaccurate, then why would a much longer version of the list on a standalone page be any more accurate? Doesn't make sense to me at least. United States Man (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The factual inaccuracy is mentioned on WP:VNTIA and in the FAQ on the talk page of Tornadoes of 2022. I’m guessing the nominator didn’t actually realize the RfC they pushed for added factual inaccuracies to the article that were accepted at the RfC. Basically, the RfC said no editor can say a tornado was Xth-costliest without a secondary reliable source. The “condensed” list the nominator wants says the top 5 costliest tornadoes as it is backed by an outdated source. The list in question List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 does not state any tornado as the Xth-costliest as it just lists all tornadoes that caused $1 million in damage or more during the year. The reader then has the option to sort on their own without Wikipedia stating it. That was what the RfC concluded. The closing remark was, Editors should reference a non-NOAA secondary source when claiming a tornado as the Xth-costliest. Reading WP:VNTIA would help explain the RfC’s outcome. The previous AfDed version of this article stated the top 10 costliest per month during the year. This article does not. Per that RfC and other articles that exist like List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes ($1 billion starting for the list) and List of costliest tornadoes in the Americas ($100 million starting for the list), a set amount to start a list would not be niche at all. If you do the math, only 3% of the yearly U.S. tornadoes made the cut. The nominator saying this is too “niche” is wrong since other articles have similar style minimums for their lists. This article passes exactly what the RfC wanted, which was to remove any Xth-costliest Wikipedia editor added text. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note – per the comments of User:WeatherWriter, if we are knowingly displaying incorrect and inaccurate information based on mistakes made in the sources that are being used, it seems to make the case much stronger to just remove the lists from Wikipedia altogether. United States Man (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said mistakes made in the sources. You clearly didn’t read WP:VNTIA, which explain the situation. Per Wikipedia’s own rules, we have to use secondary sources for those situations. If those secondary sources are outdated, that doesn’t mean we remove the info. It remains outdated. That was what the RfC concludes. Now if you want to make the accusation that this article (List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 & List of costliest tornadoes in 2023) is “displaying incorrect and inaccurate information based on mistakes in the sources that are being uses”, you need to have a very strong case to say why we should deprecate NOAA, CoreLogic, and AP News, since those are the main sources being used in those two articles. I would love for you to explain that. So, unless that is what you mean, get the facts straight that the “incorrect and inaccurate information” was actually what you desired when you wanted NOAA information removed as the sole source for tornadoes to be added to that list, hence the RfC’s exact conclusion. This just seems like you want all tornado costliest lists removed, without any true basis or reason why. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn’t you challenge the list (Tornadoes of 2022) at all? I mean, you stated earlier that this list shouldn’t exist since the condensed list exists. You didn’t even know that the RfC actually made it inaccurate until I told you a moment ago. You supported removing NOAA-only sourced tornadoes from the list and the RfC agreed with you. Per WP:VNT, which I didn’t write, the RfC’s outcome was perfectly acceptable and I’m perfectly fine with it. What I don’t get it why you had the desire to first say this list should be merged into an inaccurate list, then say that both lists should be removed for inaccuracies. And yet, an RfC said one list was perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia standards (exactly what you wanted) and that the other list being inaccurate would mean deprecating NOAA, CoreLogic, and AP news. You can’t have it both ways. Tornadoes of 2022#Costliest United States tornadoes exists the way it is right now per that RfC’s conclusion. An RfC made it that way and said it was perfectly fine. This article is perfectly fine as well since it follows the rules set by the RfC (the previous version back in March 2023 did not) and it follows other styles of articles like the List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes, which is basically a similar list but for hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean. That hurricane list was created in 2008 by the way. I created the 2023 and 2022 list and started the 2021 list before you nominated the 2023 and 2022 for deletion. I asked you on your talk page what you considered not to be a “niche” damage total, since you seem to be ok with $1 billion damage totals for tropical cyclones. You still hadn’t answered that question. I’m not seeing a solid reason yet as to why this article or the 2023 article should be deleted. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a perm link for it. I’m not sure in what archive it is in now. That’s the link used in the talk page FAQ though. Also, here is a perm link to what the March 2023 version of the article looked like. This is the version that was redirected last time and was agreed was not ok per the RfC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)06:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see that the RfC mentioned that it needs a secondary source to calculate the total cost of each tornado. The article in mention does NOT do that. It lists the primary source, the National Centers for Environmental Information, as the main source for the damage totals. Not that I wouldn't necessarily trust the primary source, but this information could be included with newspapers, books, or other websites that provide a similar total to these damages. If the costs were done independently then sent to the NCEI, then that source would be more helpful than what the gov't agency says.
The RfC did not truly say a secondary source was needed for the total cost of each tornado. Only that we cannot say a tornado was the costliest of a year without a secondary source. I wanted that clarification added to the RfC since the original closing wording of the RfC indicated what you just described, which would have removed the majority of tornado damage totals from Wikipedia, including non-list style damage totals like ones listed in tornado infoboxes as well as overall outbreak damage totals since those are generally referenced by some NCEI source. NCEI’s FAQ page ([51]) explains how it works is, “NCEI receives Storm Data from the National Weather Service. The National Weather service receives their information from a variety of sources, which include but are not limited to: county, state and federal emergency management officials, local law enforcement officials, skywarn spotters, NWS damage surveys, newspaper clipping services, the insurance industry and the general public, among others. Basically, NCEI is the database holding all the information. NCEI doesn’t make the information, but basically makes the report based on all those sources listed. NCEI is classified the finalized information from the National Weather Service since it also incorporates all the other sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC does truly say "Costliness of a tornado must have a reliable secondary source attributed to the fact." So this needs to be followed. Provide the source they get from, or I am a delete. Conyo14 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess you are a delete then since no other source practically mentions weather damage totals besides NOAA. Rare exceptions happen, but like WP:VNTIA explained, those generally become outdated quickly. Well, after this AfD finishes, if the decision is to actually delete, I will take it apon myself to remove every natural disaster damage total that isn’t backed by a secondary reliable source. Most US weather disaster damage totals will be removed in that case. But, better to make Wikipedia verifiable than accurate. Gotta uphold that community consensus at all costs I guess. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)01:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking this too much to heart. Simply place a second source. It's a notable topic, hence the conditional keep.Conyo14 (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: The sources added either did not mention monetary estimates or directly referenced the NCEI database, which itself is already referenced. They don't really accomplish the job of secondary sources to back up the monetary estimates. United States Man (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
United States Man is correct. Though having a source to the event is helpful, having a secondary source to the cost is better. I'm beginning to see whether this article (and the 2023 one) count as WP:LISTCRUFT considering the previous nomination ended in a redirect. Conyo14 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I never liked this idea. Not all tornadoes, including strong tornadoes, have damage figures and this makes me skeptical about whether or not these rankings are truly accurate. Even though they aren’t ranked anymore, I just don’t this is a good idea.
Keep - the article is interesting, factual, notable, NPOV, and gives citations. If there is doubt about the citations, that should be flagged on the citation.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is a very confusing discussion to parse. We are not hear to rehash an RFC or to bicker with editors who hold different views than our own, the only concern should be do secondary reliable sources exist which can support claims in the article. Reading through this all, that answer is still not clear to me. I think these large blocks of text discourage uninvolved editors from wanting to participate here so in any future comments, please be concise and remember your fellow editors are not weather experts. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Damage and cost of repair figures seem arbitrary. source pertaining to them seem iffy at best. That aside, this doesn't need to be it's own article. Anything covered in here can be covered in other articles. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have struck out my conditional keep. This article reads as WP:LISTCRUFT with no notability regarding damage costs. Unless it is a severe natural event with multiple secondary sources on the topic (as is required by the RfC), it does not meet the WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG and is not meeting WP:N. Conyo14 (talk) 16:21, 10 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. With extensive analysis of sources lending itself to weak delete and weak keep votes, it seems clear that the community sees this as a borderline notability case and doesn't come to a consensus as to whether it quite makes the cut. signed, Rosguilltalk03:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. A search of google books indicates that the Nursing Times have written two articles about her. She is a published author. She spoke about her cancer and treatment in interviews in local news. There is local news about her. She is not a WP:LOWPROFILE individual and therefore WP:BLP1E's three criteria are not all met. (see WP:NOTBLP1E for more details on my logic). WP:BIO1E doesn't talk about deleting articles, it talks about helping us decide between a biography and an event article. My reading of it is that it directs us towards the biography in this case. CT55555(talk) 15:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Definitely an involved creation, (Context is here) although I don't think it's an autobiography. I tried to clean it up, but couldn't get further as the sourcing just isn't there. Is there anything to @Atlantic306:'s dePROD rationale that might get her to notability that way? Otherwise I land on deletion, unfortunately, as there doesn't appear to be a merger target. StarMississippi16:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, have seen experienced editors say that high numbers of library book holdings indicates that there should be reviews of the book in reliable sources. Having done a google search I only found this journal review of her second book here which is unfortunately behind a paywall as others may also be, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In contrast to Star above, I would interpret this as an autobiography, given the short-lived nature (~1week) of the creating SPA. Her writings, including the Handbook, have low double-digit citations. There's no compelling assertion of notability. The article has been tagged for more than a dozen years. The sources are flimsy. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've gotten reviews from the Royal College of Nurses [54] and in various academic publications [55], [56], [57]. Her book is also listed as reading material for various nursing programs in the UK, I think it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the links above, the first is a 2-sentence capsule review by "Mary C, Nurse" on the publisher's website, which does not seem to help support WP:NBOOK or WP:AUTHOR notability. The second source appears to be an article she wrote for Nursing Standard, which similarly does not support notability. The third source is also written by Siviter; it helps verify aspects of her biography but does not support WP:BASIC notability. The fourth source is a book review written by Siviter, not about her work. Beccaynr (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With some sympathy for Oaktree b's viewpoint, and respect for her work and role, I'm not convinced that we pass the bar of WP:GNG based on her authorship of The Student Nurse Handbook. People write vocational guidance all the time without being considered notable as a national figure. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with a redirect to an article about the book itself. It seems to be the go-to (or one of a few) they tell the student nurses to get and it seems to have familiarity within the field. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps move with redirect to The Student Nurse Handbook which has a fair amount of citations, some of which are inline with attributed information:
Stonehouse, "Who’s responsible and accountable? You are!", Siviter (2005) states that accountability involves using your professional skill and judgement, to enable you to make decisions that are in the best interests of your patients—and then, importantly, being able to justify why you made those decisions.
Lamp, 2008 "Book Me" The Student Nurse Handbook is a guide on how to get into and survive a pre-registration nursing course. Covering a wide range of topics it helps students to: make the most of clinical placements; make drug dosage calculations and administer medica-tion; write assignments; avoid plagiarism; cope with stress; and, understand nursing models, theories and philosophies.
Ashurst, 2008, Nursing & Residential Care, "Career progression: the administration of medicines" includes an in-depth summary of some information from the handbook.
Comment - this is an outline of my review of sources identified in this discussion, in the article, and my own research:
My search of GBooks finds two results for the same 2008 Nursing Times source (snippet[58]); at ProQuest197551015, the available abstract includes "Hitchen talks about how Bethann Siviter and Sylvia Kenneth, disabled nurses, overcome their disabilities. Siviter, who was eight months into the position of a consultant nurse at South Birmingham Primary Care Trust when, on Jan 1, 2006, woke up with a high fever that left her with mobility difficulties and long-term pain. Ms Siviter was declared fit to return to work and was able to retain her role as a consultant nurse for older people but her duties were different." (Hitchen, Lisa, Nursing Times: NT; London Vol. 104, Iss. 21, (May 27-Jun 2, 2008): 16-8.)
There is brief 2022 coverage in the Birmingham Mail that notes she "worked as an NHS consultant and community nurse for 26 years. She was diagnosed with a rare form of endocrine cancer in 2019" and she "also wrote the Royal College of Nursing's student handbook" but is otherwise focused on coverage from WP:DAILYMIRROR related to her delayed surgery and her statements of support for the nurses' strike (there is no consensus on the reliability of the Daily Mirror, which also reports similar biographical information). From my view, this brief, sensationalized coverage does not transform her into a high-profile individual according to the WP:LOWPROFILE essay.
At ProQuest323712684, she is quoted in her capacity as chairwoman of the RCN Association of Nursing Students in 2002 Birmingham Post coverage, "Registration delays leave vital nurses stranded without jobs."
There is also a 2011 source from Pretoria News on ProQuest with "Credit: Daily Mail" (WP:DAILYMAIL) at the end, and further appears unusable based on the content and because it is largely based on Siviter discussing a non-notable third-party who has a presumption in favor of privacy.
In the article, there is a 2004 announcement of a book with quotes from her, and some limited biographical content, published in the Stourbridge News, a free local newspaper. This does not appear to support WP:NBOOK notability and seems to offer limited support for WP:BASIC notability. The article also cites a July 2005 Newsletter of the Elderly Services Directorate entry she wrote, with biographical information she provides, which is not independent.
Based on my review above of Oaktree b's list of sources [59], these sources do not provide independent support for WP:NBOOK or WP:AUTHOR notability.
A Nursing Standardreview of The Newly Qualified Nurse's Handbook – A Survival Guide (Louise Nadal, 22, 50, 31) was noted above by Atlantic306; this is the brief review I referred to above [60] available at ProQuest219869320 (Vol. 22, Iss. 50, (Aug 20-Aug 26, 2008): 31) - it is for "Siviter's sequel publication to the Student Nurse Handbook" and rates the book "*** Good" out of five stars. The other Nursing Standard review noted in my comment, "The Student Nurse Handbook: A Survival Guide - Second edition" (Vol. 23, Iss. 21, (Jan 28-Feb 3, 2009): 30) is more in-depth, rates the book "****" and is somewhat mixed - overall the book is praised, and also includes, "The only downside is the inclusion of chapters focusing on banding and roles, which may lead to the book becoming prematurely out of date." So we have two books, with one independent review apiece currently available, which is not sufficient to support WP:AUTHOR notability for a collective body of work, nor WP:NBOOK notability for either book.
Also on ProQuest, there are various nursing-related sources that quote her, i.e.
Nursing-related sources quoting Siviter
ProQuest219804330 "Cost of childcare pushing students into hardship", Murray, Karen. Nursing Standard; London Vol. 16, Iss. 23, (Feb 20-Feb 26, 2002): 6. ("RCN association of nursing students chair Bethann Siviter said [...], [...] Ms Siviter said.")
ProQuest219800393 "Students should be taught first aid as part of training", Duffin, Christian. Nursing Standard; London Vol. 16, Iss. 33, (May 1-May 7, 2002): 7. ("RCN association of nursing students chair Bethann Siviter said first aid courses featuring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) could save lives." (with a quote))
ProQuest219823533 "Equal measures", Murray, Karen. Nursing Standard; London Vol. 16, Iss. 34, (May 8-May 14, 2002): 12-3 ("[RCN association of nursing students (ANS)] chair Bethann Siviter says: [...] She adds [...] Ms Siviter says [...] Ms Siviter adds: [...]")
ProQuest230483603 "The human face of nursing" Andalo, Debbie." Nursing Management; London Vol. 10, Iss. 4, (Jul 2003): 10-2. This source examines "life and work and the legacy [Maude Storey] has left for the nursing profession" ("RCN council student member Bethann Siviter admits it is a pity that so few student nurses know the difference her work has made to their lives." followed by a quote
ProQuest219814333 "Mentor shortages could scupper 'foundation year'" Duffin, Christian. Nursing Standard; London Vol. 18, Iss. 50, (Aug 25-Aug 31, 2004): 7. ("Former ANS chair Bethann Siviter said [...] Ms Siviter, the author of a handbook on becoming a model student, said [...], [...] Ms Siviter said.")
ProQuest219828652 "New kid in town", Duffin, Christian. Nursing Standard; London Vol. 19, Iss. 13, (Dec 8-Dec 14, 2004): 12-3. ("Bethann Siviter, district nurse team leader in the West Midlands and an American citizen, has concerns. The challenge for UK universities, she says, [...] Ms Siviter, from Rowley Regis and Tipton Primary Care Trust, wonders [...] Ms Siviter backs the idea of PAs in principle, but says [...])
ProQuest218612614 WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?, Duffin, Christian. Nursing Older People; London Vol. 21, Iss. 3, (Apr 2009): 18-21., this source "examines the findings of a survey of readers of the RCN Publishing Company specialist journals" ("Bethann Siviter, a nurse consultant for older people from Birmingham, says of the results [...] Ms Siviter comments: [...])
ProQuest219841777 "Latest sickness absence figures show increase among NHS nurses" Snow, Tamsin. Nursing Standard (through 2013); London Vol. 24, Iss. 25, (Feb 24-Mar 2, 2010): 6. ("Nurse consultant in caring for older people Bethann Siviter had nine months sick leave last year after falling on a wet floor at work. She told Nursing Standard: [...]; Ms Siviter plans to take part in a debate at RCN congress in April on giving healthcare workers priority access to health services." - this says what she plans to do, not what she did at the RCN congress.
ProQuest1346147167 "OPENING DOORS TO JOB EQUALITY" Kendall-Raynor, Petra. Nursing Standard; London Vol. 27, Iss. 32, (Apr 10-Apr 16, 2013): 62-3. ("Nurse consultant Bethann Siviter, who became disabled following an illness, says there remains a lack of insight into disability: (with a quote) [...] Ms Siviter is unable to attend RCN congress this year, but she will be following closely a discussion topic [...] about whether disability discrimination exists in the NHS.") - this says what she plans to do, not what she did during the RCN congress.
There is a source with commentary and context on some of her other writing: ProQuest1370336734 "Respond to criticism with action", Young, Lynn. Primary Health Care; London Vol. 23, Iss. 5, (Jun 2013): 3 ("Siviter's thought-provoking columns in Primary Health Care offer a delightful, interesting and intensely personal perspective on nursing and the impact it can have on those who provide and those who receive. [...] She has been shortlisted for a prestigious award, the Professional Publishers Association columnist of the year.") - this is not entirely independent because it is published by the publication she has written for; the award shortlist appears to be independent.
ProQuest1400446299 There is also "No task too great for is my hero Taska the wonder dog", Varma, Anuji. Birmingham Mail; Birmingham (UK). 03 July 2013: 24. This is a profile of her and others, with quotes from her. This source states Siviter "was paired with the labrador in November 2011 through Canine Partners and the charity believes three-year-old Taska is the only assistance dog to be working with an active NHS nurse."
Otherwise, there appears to mostly be results for her writing on ProQuest, or briefer mentions, e.g. ProQuest219831127 "Save as you learn", Bal, Rosalind. Nursing Standard; London Vol. 20, Iss. 3, (Sep 28-Oct 4, 2005): 36-37. ("Finally, read The Student Nurse Handbook: A Survival Guide by Bethann Siviter, published by BaillièreTindall, price £10.99. It offers practical advice to inspire and encourage you to complete your course and become a nurse.") - this sources does not seem to help support WP:NBOOK or WP:AUTHOR.
Overall, I have been looking for ways to either develop an article about a book and/or support an article about Siviter according to policies and guidelines; at this time, I find it challenging to consider the sources identified in this discussion as sufficient independent and reliable support for notability according to the WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR guidelines, and WP:NBOOK also does not appear supported. We have some independent biographical and career information, and some secondary coverage, so I am leaning weak delete. Beccaynr (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries if you don't want to investigate further, but if you do, how do you feel about the (Ashurst, 2008, Nursing & Residential Care, "Career progression: the administration of medicines") source for NBOOK? —siroχo22:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can find an abstract of the source: "The administration of medicines is often an area of concern for newly qualified nurses. Adrian Ashurst discusses the principles of safe storage and best practice in the first of two articles", so it does not appear to be a book review, and based on your description it does not appear to contribute substantial support for "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media" according to the WP:TEXTBOOKS guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found it on EBSCOhost - the author cites themselves several times, and includes a table summary of "The Five Rights" (not referring to legal rights) related to dispensing the right medication in the right dose to the right person at the right time in the right way, cited to Siviter's 2004 book. This is not secondary commentary or analysis of her work, and not particularly helpful for supporting notability, because it is an example of her work being cited. Beccaynr (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking it out, wasn't sure how much weight to give it. I generally agree with your analysis, it's a borderline case to be sure, and I was hoping a move/rework to an article about the book might be an easy solution, but it looks like not. —siroχo23:59, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was the closest thing I found, and it's derived from a press release. JTtheOG (talk) 03:30, 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.
Fails WP:NMUSIC. All of the sourcing is from local-level sources or questionable sources that look like they lack serious editorial oversight. No albums that charted, and no two albums on a major record label. Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Tribune source that you linked says that it is written by a Community Contributor. Per this explanation, Community Contributors are registered users of TribLocal.com and Chicagotribune.com who have photos, articles, announcements and local events to share with other readers. This content can be posted online for free using our publishing tools. Because of this, I would disagree that the Chicago Tribune source is the "major newspaper" coverage you say it is, and a limited amount of local coverage is not sufficient either. Mz7 (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, I can't find any coverage besides the two local news articles discussed above. Most of the cites in the article itself are not WP:RS. Nsevs • Talk02:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The clowns behind articles on this wannabe and his fraud mate have long been using Wikipedia as a joke, creating articles based on exaggeration, lies and fake articles and are currently community banned but continue on using a series of throw away socks. Previously deleted from Michael Barber (musician). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:13, 24 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
These are very weak sources, most of which are self-published. I have looked online for clues of notability and besides a few vague references, the only real statements made about this organization are from themselves. It falls very far short of the notability guidelines. Fireandflames2 (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In 2010, a participant at the previous AfD wrote:
Two documentaries and a book mentioned in the article, plus a fair number of sources cited. It looks like it's been covered enough to be a notable organization, as significant coverage in reliable sources is the baseline for notability per WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The documentary, whose Wikipedia page was removed following its own AfD recently, was not made independently of the organization. If the subject is referenced almost entirely by itself.. including a “documentary” which I watched and resembles a home video at a party.. serving next to no purpose.. doesn’t constitute notability as per WP:N.
Strong Delete I agree that the sources aren’t strong or reliable. The article for the documentary having just been deleted and redirected to this one means that this article is the only source of relevance for the documentary. No production company of relevance or notability. Delete. TornUpInside (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what “coverage”?? They’re briefly mentioned in articles that are talking about mopeds and which of these brief mentions comes from a reliable source..? Independent blogs? Brief mentions in them? only three tops? The rest are just all references to their site? The documentaries just being home movies produced in association with the actual group? The book is also in association with the group. It’s a comic book as well.. not a written piece about the organization. This just seem like a joke to me.
Keep per APK above. If you can't open their ProQuest links, I've got other links via the Wikipedia Library below. Also, some more refs in addition to his:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could those arguing for Delete review the newly found sources? They seem to address the deletion rationale. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alas, Liz, I was not one of the ones arguing for deletion, but looking at A. B.'s articles, it's clear to me the GNG is met. —siroχo03:28, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Perhaps the nominator may have considered this individual as a film actor rather than a stage actor, and a withdrawal may be in order.
Clearly meets GNG, meets BASIC, almost certainly meets WP:NACTOR.2 for contributions to New Orleans stage acting. The New Orleans Times-Picayune has literally dozens (hundreds?) of articles on the subject. Other sources have coverage too. Here are just thew first few though clicking through others there's no shortage of coverage.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails GNG and NOTDICT. The article subject is a legal term of art describing a procedure in trademark practice in the United States. The sources added by James500 are either how-to guides or forms for lawyers, continuing legal education materials (which are generally just collections of primary sources [e.g., statutory materials or regulations] or outlines), or trivial mentions. I conducted a BEFORE search via Google scholar and Google books found no SIGCOV of this concept in a way that would allow this article to be other than a definition or how-to page. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. There is a very large number of independent reliable sources, that run to at least several hundred pages of significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). As far as I can see, the nominator's description of the sources in the article, and the many other sources in Google Books, is not accurate and/or not relevant to GNG. For example the nominator has claimed that some of the sources are just "forms for lawyers". That is not true. They are actually collections annotated forms. While the forms themselves were drafted by the government, the "annotations" in the books are an independent commentary, written by independent authors working for independent commercial or academic/university publishers who are independent of the government. For another example, GNG says nothing about "how-to guides", even if that description was accurate. On the face of it, "how-to guides" count towards GNG. The information in such guides can be rewritten in an encyclopedic form, like any other information. I have not seen any evidence that all of the sources consist entirely of copies of government publications. There is a lot of coverage that professes to be original. I did put text from the some of the sources, such as the IPL Newsletter and some of the Practising Law Institute books, into Google's search engine, and some of the material did appear to be demonstrably original, inasmuch as the search engine did not return any government publications for the text in question. Further, I do not understand how the nominator could have read the entirety of at least several hundreds of pages of books most of which are in "snippet view". Snippet view doesn't let you see the whole of the book, and while large portions of a book can be read, it is a slow and difficult process to read them. The article is capable of being expanded beyond a definition, therefore it does not violate NOTDICT. The article subject is a legal document and the legal procedure for using that document. A document is not a "term of art". It is a physical object. It is a piece of paper with writing on it. It is not "just a term". Similarly the procedure is physical act done by human beings, which is not a "term" either. James500 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) The policy WP:NOTDICTIONARY says "articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them." That means that we expand definition articles, instead of deleting them. James500 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Perhaps it could be rewritten to be more encyclopedic and more than just a definition, but until that happens, I don't think there's anything here worth keeping. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think what you've added is insufficient to establish notability:
The first paragraph is a definition and explanation of the procedure.
Amendments to allege use were first created by the Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988, which amended the Lanham Act. The fact that something was brought into existence does not make it notable.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office originally assumed there would be an amendement to allege use in 50% of cases. In the financial year of 1991, there was an amendement to allege use in 2.9% of cases. In 1992 and 1993, it was reported that there was an amendement to allege use in 5% of cases. The fact that a thing that exists has been used and that the federal government tracked statistics in the early 1990s does not make that thing notable.
The IPL Newsletter of the American Bar Association expressed approval for the low number of amendments to allege use. The fact that a thing exists and that some people in a specialist part of the bar knew that it existed in 1993 and approve of it not being used too often in the 1990s does not establish notability.
As of 2018, most amendments to allege use are sent to the United States Patent and Trademark Office by the Trademark Electronic Application System. A non-notable thing that is now an electronic non-notable thing does not make the non-notable thing notable. Cf.WP:NOTHOWTO.
Amendement to allege use were criticised by the IPL Newsletter. This is exceedingly vague and, in any event, criticism of a thing in a newsletter does not establish notability.
As to your points above, I looked through the snippets for each of the sources you cited to (or the full sources when I had access to them via legal databases), at the page numbers that you cited in the reference section you created (see, e.g., this search of this source: Trademarks, Copyrights, and Unfair Competition. ALI-ABA Course of Study. 1989. Pages 9, 19 and 41.). Those mentions appeared to me to be trivial, definitional, or part of a how-to guide, none of which establish notability here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text quoted above that I added to body of the article was intended to deal with the claim that the article failed NOTDICT, not claims about notability. WP:ARTN says that the content of the article is irrelevant to notability. Notability is determined by the amount of coverage that can be found on the internet etc with Google etc, which in this case is hundreds of pages of significant coverage in dozens of law books and other books, that you have not addressed, and can not address, simply by criticising the present text of the Wikipedia article.
I hardly think that two statistics explained by reference to the praise of those statistics in the IPL Newsletter constitutes "excessive listings of unexplained statistics", since the listing is neither excessive nor unexplained. The prediction is not a statistic at all (because it failed to come true). And a statistic about the number of amendments sent by TEAS is not "how to" content.
WP:NOTHOWTO does not say anything about what sources do or do not contribute to GNG. WP:NOTHOWTO does not say, either in express words or by implication, "How-to books are not significant coverage for GNG". If, for the sake of argument, a book is a "how to" book, that book contributes to GNG like any other. You just don't copy the "how to" content without rewriting it so that it is no longer "how to" content. The actual principle of the policy, and what it actually says, is that Wikipedia does not give "instructions in the imperative mood". So, if the book contains instructions in the imperative mood, you just rewrite the information so that it is no longer an instruction, and no longer in the imperative mood. That is easily done. In any event, where a book simply states or explains what the law is (as opposed to giving instructions to readers), that is not a "how-to" book. As far as I can see, the books don't consist entirely, or even mostly, of instructions to readers; and their content is therefore mostly not "how to" content.
A search like this is no good, because it does not read the whole content of the three pages in question. You have to read on like this and this until you have read the whole of each page. (Admittedly, this is perhaps not one of the more important sources compared to, for example, 70+ pages, 70+ pages, 30+ pages, 30+ pages and 20+ pages)).
It would be helpful if would you would stop repeating what you have already said, stop putting words into my mouth, stop misrepresenting policies, guidelines and sources, and delete from your comment the irrelevant direct quotes from the article you have added above, as no one claimed they were proof of "inherent" notability. James500 (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, as far as I can see, most of the relevant content of the relevant books [69][70] is not trivial, definitional, or "how-to" content. James500 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what about an analysis of the article as written is "repeating what [I] have already said", I'm not sure how I "put[] words into [your] mouth", and I think you're misunderstanding my point, which is that if all of the RSes are definitional or how to guides, the only thing this article can ever be is a regurgitation of definitions or how to guides. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what concerns me with legal pages in particular is the high risk of the contents being digested by a LLM AI to give offwiki users incorrect information. I don't know how to parse this topic; it seems on the one hand that there is a lot of verbage and opinion written about it, but we are not a legal journal and it is outwith of our purpose to write a page as if we are. On the other, cutting right down to the absolute basics without any opinion appears to then be a legal dictionary definition and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Even leaving the page as it is appears problematic if there are similar legal terms in other juristidictions which mean slightly different things. Could the page contents be merged to wiktionary and this title redirected? JMWt (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of potential errors in any Wikipedia article, including medical articles where the potential consequences are worse, does not justify their deletion as Wikipedia is an ongoing project. The article cites reliable sources and is not written as a dictionary entry. Marokwitz (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not accurate and has no basis in policy or guideline. There is no policy or guideline that says Wikipedia does not neutrally report the opinions or comments of reliable sources. The statistics and history in the article are not opinions or comments or definitions. There are only two sentences in the article that actually consist of opinion or comment. There is no policy or guideline that says that Wikipedia does not state or explain what the law is. A statement or explanation of what the law is not an opinion or comment. If I write something that means "Statute X [or judicial precedent X, as the case may be] imposes on person A a statutory [or common law] duty to do Y; and if he does not perform that statutory duty, then the statute [or judicial precedent] imposes legal sanction Z as a punishment", that proposition of law is not opinion or comment or definition. It merely is a statement of what the law is, and it ought to be included in any encyclopedia. WP:5P1 says that Wikipedia combines features of general and specialized encyclopedias (my emphasis). Therefore Wikipedia absolutely is a legal encyclopedia, and should include everything that you would expect to find in a legal encyclopedia, and in every other form of specialized encyclopedia. Most of the coverage of this topic in law books consists of exactly the kind of material that you would find in a legal encyclopedia, and therefore ought to be included. Indeed, you would find a very large amount of exactly that kind of material in Britannica. The bottom line is that if we excluded this article on the basis of that kind of reasoning, it would be completely impossible to have any articles about laws. That would completely disrupt this area of the project, for no benefit to our readers. James500 (talk) 17:47, 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.
These were short-lived museum exhibits from over 15 years ago. There is no evidence these exhibits are, or were, notable or could pass WP:GNG. These articles were created by the same user at the time of the exhibit using 'citations' which were press releases or primary sources (WP:NOTADVERT). The subjects fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. Over a month ago I took the best single citations and put them next to the mention of each of these three exhibit names at Science Museum, London § Temporary and touring exhibitions where there was a brief mention along with all the other non-notable temporary exhibits.
User also created the redirect The Science of..., and the only use of these 4 articles was by this user to link to each other. However, the same "names" are used numerous times throughout Wikipedia for book titles, convention names, other unrelated museum exhibits, and more (insource search results for science of survival (38)aliens (7)spying (5)). For this reason, converting these to redirects would be inadvisable because of confusions — these temporary museum exhibits don't rate higher than published books and other uses of the same strings of words — and since there are no other uses of these, there's no reason to keep these even as redirects. Grorp (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Your tool was able to recover a single blog article [71]; the other 'fixes' either point to archived "page not found" webpages, or are external links to archived scienceof.com webpages (primary sources) that have no content (unless, perhaps, you still run javascript; my computer shows nothing after trying 3 different browsers). You suggest you were able to find other sources but have not provided any here or in the articles for evaluation of notability. Sure you can get 'hits' because there are many museums who have exhibits using the same names, but they're not the same exhibit or origin (from Science Museum, London). I haven't seen a single current online article devoted to the exhibits mentioned in these 3 wiki articles. Have you? Grorp (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we perhaps both merge with the other "The science of..." entries and link to a disambiguation page? I'm on the fence about whether or not this topic would be worthy of an article but I think it does (just technically) meet WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: A newspaper blog is a reliable source. The dead links to reliable sources are frustrating, but I think they can be taken as evidence that the reviews in question were published and were once available online. A reference doesn't have to be available online today to be valid. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs)04:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted to consider redirect suggestion (which I believe is different than the one the nominator is argued against). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine I guess... I'd merge these three articles into a one line sentence about the "Science of" travelling exhibits and be done with it. I'm not fussed either way. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 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.
Even with reliable sources, I have concerns about the article's compliance with the wholeWP:BLP, including WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, being notable for also his Dr. Phil appearance as recovering alcoholic besides his win in Survivor: China makes me wonder whether it follows (the spirit of) BLP. Furthermore, the subject's accusation toward the production company of Dr. Phil (about giving away a vodka bottle and a Xanan pill) speaks WP:BLPGOSSIP.
Speaking of BLP1E, I'm unconvinced that his Survivor win suffices to save this article from either deletion or redirection to Survivor: China. I'm also unconvinced that appearing in Dr. Phil also makes him notable. Even if the Dr. Phil appearance does, I'm skeptical that such "notability" would comply with BLP policy.
Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that both the win and Dr. Phil appearance disqualify him as a "low-profile individual". Moreover, non-notable or low-profile people appeared in Dr. Phil as recovering alcoholics ([72][73][74]), and there's not one Wikipedia article about any such individual. George Ho (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SUSTAINED, an article about low-profile individual whose notability is based on only one event should be generally avoided. Furthermore, Newsday is a tabloid. Also, the other sources you mentioned covered him in only the context of his Survivor: China win, and they were published around the time when his win was originally broadcast. Also, even notability alone may not guarantee a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. George Ho (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP1E does not apply to a winner of Survivor, as it only applies If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.. There may still indeed BLP issues to fix up here. —siroχo04:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint you, but more than ten articles about individual winners have been redirected to their respective season pages per that policy, and two other such articles were deleted. Even the standalone list of the winners was deleted per AFD. George Ho (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that there is no WP:BIO2E. Even if we apply BLP policies to take more care with the coverage of the Dr. Phil stuff, this individual is still notable for 2 distinct events, so WP:BIO1E would not apply either. If you or other editors think a merge into a survivor article improves the encyclopedia, the talk pages where folks more acquainted with the territory can discuss over a longer-than-7-day period are probably a better location for that. —siroχo07:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I must rephrase what I said in my nomination, his notability for his Dr. Phil appearance is called into question. The Dr. Phil show itself may be notable, but most (if not all) individual episodes themselves aren't. Even the appearance itself isn't that notable, despite news coverage. But... whatever. I can't change your mind further. George Ho (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting although there is some confusion over whether WP:BIO1E or WP:BIO1EWP:BLP1E might apply to this article. Previous AFDs may have closed as Redirect but editors here are arguing for a Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet he appeared in only the whole China season. How are all of China episodes separate events? Why not count all of the episodes as just one event? Oh, and why not WP:BIO1E if not BLP1E? George Ho (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, he didn't do one thing, like grow a large grapefruit, he appeared in a series of tv episodes, multiple things together. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay for me to withdraw from this nomination at this moment? Seems that the majority overwhelmingly favors keeping the article. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 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.
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search. There is a lot of routine coverage like this match report, and the best thing I found was an Times of Eswatini article that primarily consists of Q&A with the subject (and lacks secondary coverage). Additionally, I reviewed the sources identified in the 2015 AfD and don't believe any of them constitute SIGCOV as they are routine, don't cover the subject directly, or don't go into sufficient detail (three sentences doesn't cut it). Jogurney (talk) 17:19, 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.
Keep: By virtue of the fact that he has played for a nation’s national team. I believe if he was an English player, we won’t be having this conversation right now. Amaekuma (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you 100%. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a social media platform. Which means that some of the data it contains would not be as a result of the popularity of the subject, but to make the encyclopedia as extensive and encompassing as possible.
The information on the subject that is encyclopedic is already contained on other pages of Wikipedia. A standalone article is of no value. JoelleJay (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found Limpopo Mirror but it's only a trivial mention. I don't believe that it is written anywhere that all footballers must meet WP:GNG except those with an international cap and would challenge people making such a claim to link me to the relevant notability guideline. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)09:28, 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.
Subject made two int'l appearances for the Comoros national football team and played club football in the French fifth, sixth, and seventh tiers. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:11, 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 delete. Just a head's up, sports notability guidelines have changed over the years. Being a member of a team is not sufficient to establish notability. LizRead!Talk!02:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: By virtue of his affiliation with a notable club, he is notable. If you go on Twitter, sports players get verified because they are associated with certain notable organizations. From graphic designers, to photographers to PLAYERS. Amaekuma (talk) 20:08, 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.
Done. The article is no longer a definition (and can be expanded further). James500 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)