Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< June 02	June 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Peri

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Was deleted in September 2018. Sources in article and elsewhere online are either mentions in passing, interviews or PR paid-for puff pieces. No independent in-depth coverage found. Edwardx (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bodybuilding, Portugal, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP violations; owning a small business does not make one notable. We might also consider nominating the business. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palatine Lodge No. 97

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On the surface, this looks like a well-sourced article of a very old organization. However, when reviewing the sources, there are no independent secondary sources that discuss the subject in-depth. All sources are affiliated with the organization, either directly to the lodge or Freemasonry. A review of sources are available at the talk page Talk:Palatine_Lodge_No._97#Excessive_Primary_Sources. As existence, even long existence is not notability, I believe this article fails WP:NORG and despite expressing concerns in draft and main space, no attempt to find independent, secondary sources has been attempted.A WP:BEFORE does not locate significant coverage. Slywriter (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Slywriter (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have made many points in defence of this article on the article and Slywriters talk pages, I feel I should briefly reiterate that sources are independent and are not affiliated with Palatine Lodge No 97.

The University of Sheffield, who hold and publish the Lane’s Masonic Records are in no way affiliated.

The Newspapers and articles held in the British Museum Archive, from various publications (and geographic locations) are not affiliated.

The Beamish Open Air Museum is a Social History Museum and has no affiliation with Palatine Lodge No 97. etc, etc

To further enhance this article, I’ve located and included two book references.

So, to conclude, the sources in this article have been written by independent third parties. They were written by persons who have no connection to the Palatine Lodge but were simply reporting on its verified activities. Thankyou. Stev201961 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Warsaw Uprising. ✗plicit 13:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of the Warsaw Uprising

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Citing no sources since 2015, possible POV fork. I'd suggest merging back into parent article. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The topic is notable (and the pl wiki article has some refs), but this is totally unreferenced, and I oppose merging unreferenced content on princile (WP:V). A redirect will be fine, waiting for someone to restore it with sources one day. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be the wisest course.TH1980 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Room

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found this [1] in The Record from New Jersey. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep was able to add a few sources, not great, but it's something. Artw (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn DAO

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Guardian mention of Unicorn DAO is two sentences. Only source that passes GNG is Time. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Cryptocurrency. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sexuality and gender. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Hello I read up on the GNG and added some sources (rolling stone) etc etc . I do think it fights the General Notability Guidelines - "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Significant Coverage - Time, Rolling Stone, Decrypt, Coin Telegraph, Guardian

Reliable Sources - Time and Rolling Stone are notable - Decrypt and Coin Telegraph are widely respected in the crypto world.

Regarding the Guardian Article - "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - Guardian article is cited for first purchase

Thank you for reviewing Pathofkarma (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also updated with Grimes tweet from today with announcement of joining. Pathofkarma (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 paragraphs on unicorn dao in guardian article. Pathofkarma (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1 - Removed non GNG sources. Leaving Sources Time + Guardian + CNN.Pathofkarma

Update 2 -Coin Telegraph is a respected source in Crypto and Web3 News. Thank you for review Sungodtemple CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

Update 3 - Added ArtNet + ArtCritic Report on % sales of female nft artists.

Update 4 - Re GNG - added Rolling Stone. Assume Articles from Time + Rolling Stone + Mention in Guardian + multiple crypto outlets is enough to fulfill GNG. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article does not mention UnicornDAO and the CoinTelegraph article has a single-word trivial mention. I cannot access the Rolling Stone article, but given its title and link I would assume it is focused on Pussy Riot and not Unicorn DAO. This leaves Time and Decrypt. To be honest, I think UkraineDAO has enough GNG sources to merit its own article. The UnicornDAO article is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you cannot access the Rolling stone / it is not paywalled - the byline is "They’re also launching a new organization to benefit women and LGBTQ+ artists called UnicornDAO" and have 6 long paragraphs specific to Unicorn DAO.

Removing Coin Telegraph as that isn't a great source of info - Decrypt article is dedicated (however neither of these are on perrenial list).

Adding Grimes tweet from today with her involvement - https://twitter.com/Grimezsz/status/1525981460561137664?s=20&t=cbeIrcsaeB5VPW1pN7FSzg

Please let me know when you have reviewed the rolling stone article. Pathofkarma (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Summarizing here for easier review:

Summary of Perrenial Sources that cover this article according to guidelines on the General Notability Guidelines "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Perennial Sources

- Time - Sole focus of article / Exclusive

- Variety - Multiple Paragraphs and interview topic

- Guardian - Multiple mentions and interview topic

- Rolling Stone - Byline of Article, many paragraphs

Tangential

- CNN - Contextual

Not Perennial (but substantial coverage)

- Decrypt

- Tweet of Musician Grimes

- Bloomberg —

User Sungodtemple who flagged for deletion has stated they have not reviewed the refs and are basing off title alone, or are only searching for the business name. Requesting review of refs by Sungodtemple or admin and push to oppose/keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) 02:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova - the WP:ORG guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. This is a newly-formed organization, and it appears to be WP:TOOSOON to meet these heightened standards at this time. For example, this March 2022 article in Rolling Stone is focused on a new song release and has one graf of independent content about Unicorn Dao and a quote from Tolokonnikova about the goal of the organization. The March 2022 CNN article is about a fundraiser organized by Unicorn Dao, quotes Tolokonnikova and the organization website, and includes independent context that does not seem to add a lot of WP:ORGDEPTH. The March 2022 Time article has an overall focus on Tolokonnikova and includes a substantial focus on the launch of the organization, including quotes from founders and general as well as specific context. The March 2022 Guardian interview with Tolokonnikova includes indepenent content about her, and quotes from her about Unicorn Dao. March 2022 coverage in The Art Newspaper is mostly a collection of quotes related to the launch of Unicorn Dao, including some focused generally on the art market. March 2022 coverage from Variety is based around an interview with Tolokonnikova and includes content related to the public art exhibition Patriarchy RIP curated by Unicorn Dao. I have also not found independent and reliable coverage beyond this early burst of publicity, and WP:SUSTAINED coverage is needed to support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:SUSTAINED have added Bloomberg coverage from May.

Time / March 2022 on formation of DAO

Rolling Stone / March 2022 on formation of DAO

Variety / March 2022 on public art exhibit

Bloomberg / May 2022 on activist initiatives

Should be GNG as well as show sustained Pathofkarma (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2022-05-19/unicorndao-working-to-fix-crypto-bro-culture-video — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg TV source is an interview with Tolokonnikova, and her statements are not independent content that can help support notability. According to the notability guideline for organizations, 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. Beccaynr (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking on the relist recheck by an admin, thank you 45.19.165.201 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe there are enough reliable sources for a stand alone article. I think this new industry is catching news rapidly. JK.Kite (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NCRYPTO states that crypto-centric publications may not be used to show notability. I do not currently have an opinion one way or the other on the rest of the sources provided. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 22:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sum of Perrenial Sources fits GNG, with seperate and significant events that don't fit into another article. Pathofkarma (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Comment Per WP:ORGDEPTH, with the exception of the Time article, these sources are not significant, including because Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Per this guideline, Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The overall coverage appears to be focused on Tolokonnikova, so what she has developed can be included in her article, and if sufficient sources become available to support the notability of the organization, a separate article can be created in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone, Variety, Guardian use multiple paragraphs each discussing topics outside the scope of Time Mag article specific to Unicorn. 45.19.165.201 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have discussed the sources in my comments above as well as the applicable guideline, but please also note that per the WP:PROMO policy, Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts, so this should be considered when assessing sources based on promotional quotes from the founders and the organization's website. Beccaynr (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I spent some time on reading the sources and concluded that GNG is nearly met. Sources are from authentic media houses and everyone thinks that merging and toosoon are the options so def not a delete. Elena Marcus D (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the sources are OK, and although Tolokonnikova is the face of the organization and its main spokesperson, there's enough coverage of the organization's activity in reliable sources beyond just her activity. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova or Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company

This from Time is a profile on Tolokonnikova before the topic organization had even come into existence. All of the information is provided by Tolokonnikova and the article has no "Independent Content" (fails ORGIND) and no in-depth information on the company (it's all forward-looking crystal ball stuff), fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This from The Art Newspaper also relies entirely on information available online from the company and from Tolokonnikova, also fails ORGIND
Neither this from CNN nor this from ArtNet don't even mention this organization, fails CORPDEPTH
This from The Guardian is mainly about Tolokonnikova but mentions the topic organization in passing using quotes from her, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
This from Variety is based on an interview with Tolokonnikova and the topic organization gets a mention-in-passing, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This Bloomberg piece is an interview with Tolokonnikova, fails ORGIND
This from decrypt.co takes all its information from a co-founder, Rebecca Lamis, fails ORGIND.

None of the reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With Time and the multiple other ref's, we've got notability. I've also found a brief mention in LA Weekly, [2] and brief mention in Italian Vanity Fair [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please provide paragraph/page numbers as to *why* Time (and multiple other refs) does not fail ORGIND and meets CORPDEPTH/NCORP please. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're acceptable sources. A bunch of little sources ad up to enough of a mention in my books to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reasoning. Except you may not therefore be aware that combining sources doesn't qualify those references towards notability as per WP:SIRS. We don't combine little sources and say that the combination is the same as a big source. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova. I agree with the assessments of HighKing. The references do not establish notability. Merko (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~strike duplicate !vote Stands on its own. Disagree with Merge as it is separate from Pussy Riot. It is founded by Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, but also includes other notable founders - Beeple, Grimes, Guy Oseary who have not been involved on a notable business together prior Pathofkarma (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Comment So far, not one Keep !voter has even tried to justify, using reasoning and guidelines, why any of the references meets WP:NCORP. This is not a !vote-counting exercise. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Updated with another independent perennial source / Gizmodo on 6.9.22 - https://gizmodo.com/pussy-riot-nft-texas-abortion-blockchain-russia-1849047057

The article mostly focuses on an unrelated Pussy Riot protest and NFT, then offers limited content from the UnicornDAO website, what appears to be a crypto publication, and promotional statements from Tolokonnikova, without sufficient depth per the heightened standard for sources in the WP:ORG guideline discussed above. Beccaynr (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP, as per source analysis by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK3, this nomination is so erroneous that I'm doubtful the nominator even read the first sentence of the article on the legislative chamber. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pasha Patel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sign in the sourcing that he meets WP:NPOLITICIAN. The only position he seems to have held is as a member of the Legislative Council (MLC), which is lower than the State Legislature. Previous nomination was closed as a keep. Let's revisit. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; meets WP:NPOL, as explained in the two previous AfDs. @TechnoTalk, I'm curious why you say that the Legislative Council "is lower than the State Legislature". Our article Maharashtra Legislative Council states that the "Maharashtra Legislative Council is the upper house of the bicameral legislature of Maharashtra state in western India", so it is a part of the state legislature, meaning that Patel passes NPOL. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to United Methodist Church. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Methodist Volunteers in Mission

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't warrant standalone article, the three or four sentences in the article can be incorporated into United Methodist Church Mooonswimmer 22:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United Methodist Church, not enough coverage for a standalone article imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Micklewright

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA notability criteria. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, Martial arts, United States of America, and Iowa. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He did meet the old notability standard for MMA fighters (3 top tier fights), but not the new one. Fightmatrix says his highest ranking ever was 175. I don't see the coverage necessary to meet the GNG. Most of it is either fight promotional or fight results and I don't think those meet the requirement.Sandals2 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck O'Neil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA notability criteria. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and Massachusetts. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only two top tier fights he never met WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by fightmatrix was 80. I don't see any significant independent coverage of him to meet the GNG, just some results and database entries.Sandals2 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. My search found no evidence that he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family separation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DICDEF; This topic header is too general and not likely to lead anywhere; nothing substantive in this article Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 21:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand substantially. An important social/sociological and legal topic. 124.217.188.29 (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree with the nominators rationale that the topic is "not likely to lead anywhere" or that it is doomed to be only a dictionary definition. Sources clearly show it passes GNG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, this article needs to be expanded, not removed.★Trekker (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BEFORE. It's literally a basic right enunciated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i see nominator's point that this could be too broad as written, as opposed to Trump administration family separation policy. Family separation can happen in so many contexts--for example in cases of child abuse, where separation is intended to be beneficial to the health of the child.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While the article might not have been in great shape at the time of nomination, I trust the opinions of the editors weighing in here on the value of the film. It looks like work is already being done to improve this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Queen of St. Francis High

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has longstanding problems, which have not been solved despite a previous AfD. Questionable notability. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article is in terrible shape, there is the LA Times review (which I verified) and this review I found [4]. There is a claim of the San Francisco Chronicle review, but unless someone has access to their archives it can't be verified, but we have to assume good faith that that article does exist. After all, when a citation is used in a printed book, we can't verify it, but we accept it. In any case, with the 2 that are verified, I believe the film passes WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 02:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a bit to the article myself. I also found a source that mentions a really scathing Variety review, which in turn implies wider coverage. Apparently this movie was extremely poorly received in the US, to the point where the audience at a Hollywood screening was openly jeered. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can anyone help w/ finishing the plot? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reviews in reliable sources such as The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Light Keep I have some concerns about notability, but I think the article is just poorly put together. Sources of coverage seem WP:GNG-passable, so I lean keep. Gnomatique (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino County Probation Department

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable, and has been tagged as such since 2016. Large uncited sections. Two of the three citations are first-party and the other is just a link to the location of a juvenile detention facility on a map. Addressing the WP:BEFORE concerns from the the PROD: "San Bernardino County Probation" only returns six pages of results on Google, all of which is local routine coverage, connected government agency sites, directory listings, and the usual web detritus. Most significant news article was this, which is only about a former officer who was sent to prison, not for job-related reasons. Gbooks and Gnews came up similarly empty. Apocheir (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. It exists, but that's it. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete departments of county governments are rarely notable enough to merit articles of their own. Nothing suggests this would be one of the extremely rare exceptions to that rule of thumb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:INDEPENDENT sources found. ~Kvng (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Latin American Canadians. There is rough consensus that there is not enough coverage of these topics (Fooian Canadians) to warrant an article. The "keep" opinions are in a minority and mostly weakly argued: the screed by PhiladelphiaWanderer34 must be disregarded because of personal attacks (" Wikipedia and Slywriter have committed literary genocide"), and the opinions by Bearian and ~Kvng merely assert importance without citing sources. There are a few "keep" opinions that do make valid arguments but they are a very small minority. The idea of redirecting instead of deleting the articles, per WP:ATD, has received no opposition, and is accordingly implemented. This allows for selective mergers of content from the history if desired. Sandstein 10:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemalan Canadians

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a dumping of statistics from Statistics Canada/ Census. No indication of notability nor encyclopedic value. Fails WP:GNG. Slywriter (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slywriter,

While the Latin American Canadian community in Canada is relatively smaller than the Latino American community in the United States (2% in Canada as opposed to almost 20% in America), the Latino Canadian community in Canada deserves a page. I’m now seeing that this doesn’t have anything to do with just the Guatemalan and Honduran Canadian communities but all of the Latino Canadians as well. The pages can be added and edited with links and articles of each associated page. The statistics are there to compare and contrast as well as for further research into the corresponding communities. All this Wikipedia page is for is to make an fairly easy research involving census data as well as adding additional data involving each associated community.

Mind you, why delete the Latino Canadian page and what’s the purpose other than the lack of links other than Statistics Canada? By deleting the Latin Canadian Wikipedia page as well as the other pages associated with Latino Canadians, you’ve practically erased one portion of the Canadian community and by erasing an entire page, you’ve made an entire community invisible by your shortsighted attempt to exclude Latino Canadians from Canadian society.

There are similar communities outside of the Latino Canadian community in which each ethnic group has similar number as low as 10,000 people to has high as 50,000 and no more than 100,000 so should we delete the Trinidadian, the Bajan, the Ghanaian and the Nigerian communities because each community doesn’t make up 1% of Canadian society? Or how about just delete the Cambodian and the Laotian community in Montreal because it’s too small for Canada? But we can add certain other communities like the Maltese and the Albanian communities and not even think of deleting their data from Wikipedia.

Before looking at the Latino Canadian page, I wasn’t even aware that Canada had a present Latino community. After reading the Wikipedia page, I was impressed that Latin Americans didn’t just migrate to America but to Canada as well and I’ve also learned that Latinos have established communities in Calgary and Edmonton for Venezuelans, Brandon and Winnipeg MB for Salvadorans, Ecuadorians in Brampton and Toronto ON, and Dominicans and Colombians in Montreal and Laval.

If Wikipedia goes along with the deletion of not just The Guatemalan and Honduran communities, but all of the Latino Canadian communities, then it looks like Wikipedia and Slywriter have committed literary genocide amongst a small, but a rapidly and robustly growing population in Canadian society. Also, if this happens, then I’ve lost faith in Wikipedia in providing fair and unbiased information for the world’s masses.

If that’s what Wikipedia wants to do, fine, but you’re doing this at the expense of a people and a group and I don’t want to use the word but it’s a very prejudiced notion to delete an entire group because of “ lack of information or lack of literary value”. I’ll have to bring this up to the Latino associations in Canada so they can read and review this literary genocide that’s about to happen today! PhiladelphiaWanderer34 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks like "genocide" and restrict your comments to discussing the articles (ideally with support from Wikipedia policy, not emotional pleas) and not comment on other editors or your perception of their motivations. This is purely about Wikipedia policies. I've placed this here so the community can determine whether its notable and meets notability guidelines.Slywriter (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume the community exists, why wouldn't it? We have immigrants from all over here. Not all immigrant communities are notable enough for wikipedia. Please present multiple sources showing what prominent individuals from the community have accomplished, which would go a long way in supporting notability standards. Otherwise, this is no more than list and a collection of numbers. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oaktree_b Here's the section that I created that shows what prominent individuals from the community have accomplished:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Canadians#Notable_Guatemalan_Canadians

This was done recently, after the nomination. At that point, it was mostly just numbers. CT55555 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A total of 5 people? That could easily just be added to a list elsewhere, they aren't exactly notable on their own either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt's not literary and personal attacks are not welcome. No notable sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because substantially same issue, they are all either notable or not:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Canada, and Guatemala. Slywriter (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm never sure how to discuss these bulk nominations. I assume because they are bulked together, I don't need to make 14 different !votes and 14 different arguments and we're just picking the top one as the proxy for the rest. I therefore make a !vote and argument for Guatemalan Canadians without checking if it is the more/less/average notability for the group. If I'm wrong in this approach, please say.
Keep Using Guatemalan Canadians as the proxy for the whole group, I find Guatemalan Canadians to be a notable topic, as per the points below:
1. An academic paper on the topic https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08263663.2004.10816859
2. The following PhD thesis about refugee groups in Canada mentions Guatemalans 93 times https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item?id=NQ56093&op=pdf&app=Library&oclc_number=1006925288

These reliable, independent sources provide significant coverage of the topic, and combined with what is already in the article, demonstrate notability as per the guidelines located at WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable" sources? I have to say that a source which starts with the turgid sentence of "Through a transnational lens, I draw attention to the spatialization of Guatemalan refugee and immigrant settlement in Canada and highlight the relatively local and immobile lives, yet highly transnational social relations, that characterize their experience" is highly likely to consist of equally turgid twaddle. Have these academic papers been vetted and peer-reviewed? Ravenswing 07:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was published in the Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies which is a bona fide academic journal with over 40 years of publishing history. It is published by Taylor & Francis, the editorial board is detailed here
While the second one is a PhD thesis and therefore your question is valid, it was also later published as a book by Routledge, and therefore that can remove any doubt - https://www.routledge.com/Transnational-Ruptures-Gender-and-Forced-Migration/Nolin/p/book/9780367604035 I just used the PhD thesis because it was searchable.

So overall, yes, they are reliable sources. CT55555 (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only hope that the administrators in Wikipedia can come to their clear senses and understand that some chap may have a problem with Latinos in Canada. I’m not even sure if he’s from Canada and it’s funny because I’m not Canadian neither but an American citizen and somehow someway one poster feels that an ethnic group deserves deletion because to make a long story short, the Latino community in Canada is insignificant to deserve it’s own page on Wikipedia.

We’re not all prefect and we make mistakes on Wikipedia that can be easily corrected, but then again Slywriter wants us to be “collaborative” when he’s vouching towards removing an ethnic group from Canadian topics because in his own words, “there’s no indication of notability nor encyclopedic value”, which is off putting at the most and can be considered prejudiced for certain people.

My only appeal to the administrators who read this is to take this off of deletion because this has become very annoying for people who not only want to learn about Latino Canadians and Canada in general, but understand how immigration does affect different countries. The proposed deletion of the Latin American Canadian page was the final straw and I can only hope Slywriter gets reported for trolling and ethnic intimidation. It’s a shame we have to deal with people like him but that’s the world we live in and it’s a shame! PhiladelphiaWanderer34 (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDATABASE is the relevant policy. A chart of primary sourced statistics is not encyclopedic content. Also enough with the personal attacks, WP:Civility is not optional.Slywriter (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PhiladelphiaWanderer34, because it's plainly impossible -- and what kind of person does it take to assume good faith in these situations??? -- for someone to nominate articles for deletion on Wikipedia out of policy motives, instead of having some sinister and dastardly racist scheme. Perish the thought. Ravenswing 06:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of this info is already included in Ethnic origins of people in Canada and the relevant Category:Latin American Canadian categories. The only reason to have a standalone page on the topic is if the topic itself has received SIGCOV in multiple secondary independent RS. Articles by the same person are not considered "multiple" because they are not independent analyses (not that a PhD thesis cited like 5 times should ever be used here), so we still need further sources demonstrating "X Canadians" as a group have received direct, comprehensive coverage if this page is to be kept. JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point about both the sources I mention being by the same author. Here's a book that is mainly about migrant workers from Guatemala working in Canada, but it has enough coverage of those who make it their home to say it also addresses the topic:

Legislated Inequality: Temporary Labour Migration in Canada. (2012). United Kingdom: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Regarding the PhD thesis, it's actually also a book and I was going to cite it like that, but it wasn't searchable, so I went for the searchable one. But I mention above it's a published book too, so I hope that removes any doubt about its reliability. CT55555 (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and you've read it, I presume? Ravenswing 19:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you mean...
If you're asking if I read the entire book before commenting on notability - no

If you're asking if, as part of my WP:BEFORE type analysis to inform my opinion about the notability of the topic - yes.

So yes, I've read it, no, I've not read all or even most of it, just enough internal searching of it to establish that is has significant coverage of the subject. CT55555 (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Leaving aside disgusting accusations of racism, I'd like to address CT55555's keep rationale. It may well be so that, say, Guatemalan Canadians are a potentially notable topic. It is also true that these articles don't remotely represent an encyclopedic treatment of their subjects. They're nothing but database fact sheets that tell us nothing but how many of X live in Y province. Terrific, so now we know that there are -- or at least that the provincial government believes -- 45 people of Guatemalan descent in Newfoundland. We know nothing else. How many of these people (if any) still use their parent languages? How many retain their ethnic customs? Are there any known Guatemalan communities or neighborhoods? Any notable ethnic folk festivals celebrating their background? Had these articles contained such information, reliably sourced, I wouldn't be voting to Delete. Ravenswing 07:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comments about X living Y are what is in the article now, not what the sources I've quoted add. I respect your interests in various aspects of society, but those are you just your opinion, you are not making a argument based on guidelines here. The focus of this conversation should be if it can be established that the topic is sufficiently notable. No guide specifies that any article must have details about ethnic folk festivals etc. CT55555 (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. But they really need to have details about SOMEthing. (Those were examples, not my personal chiseled-in-granite laundry list.) NOTDATABASE is a perfectly sound deletion rationale, and the way to counter it is to actually provide encyclopedic elements that are not wholly collections of stats, not to simply speculate that such elements might be out there.

Now indeed, that's my opinion. AfD exists to gather editors' opinions about notability, so I don't quite see what the issue there is: certainly you gave, well, your opinion on the reliability of those sources you provided. Ravenswing 19:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:DEL-REASON #8 our job here is to discuss if the subject is notable. Not if the article, as it stands today meets notability criteria. We need to do a WP:BEFORE type search, which I've done, and identified sources, and that contains details. They are not in the article just now. That doesn't matter. The encyclopedic content exists. You cannot dismiss the sources I've cited on the basis of WP:NOTDATABASE because it doesn't break any of the 4 criteria there currently, I think. And it definitely doesn't when you consider the sources I've mentioned above. CT55555 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to report that I've added in content about folk festivals and neighbourhoods where Guatemalan-Canadians live. CT55555 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and also the other pages Salvadoran Canadians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Dominican Canadians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Cuban Canadians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), etc., unless you are also able to open up a page for each Departamento of those countries, so you would have Petén Canadian Guatemalans, Sololá Canadian Guatemalans, Retalhuleu Canadian Guatemalans, etc. For that matter, you should also consider opening up the Petenese Albertan Canadian Guatemalans, the Petenese Quebeçois Canadian Guatemalans, the Petenese New Brunswick Canadian Guatemalans, etc. Each person is entitled to be acknowledged. XavierItzm (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a helpful essay about this delete argument here WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The argument that I hope justifies keeping is that it meets the notability criteria, rather than anyone saying that every group should have an article. CT55555 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all (merge in the few instances it is appropriate) to Latin American Canadians as an ATD and as plausible search terms. These all fail NOTSTATS as argued above; and making them into actually suitable encyclopedic articles would pretty much require a new start from scratch (not that there is much to start with here, to begin with). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: a select few of these appear to have some non-stats coverage. However, given the state of the target article, and per WP:NOPAGE, a merge (which can be done from the history once they are redirected) would probably be more appropriate - this can be done independently of the AfD, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: That strikes me as an unusual proposal. You're allowing that some of these may have mergable content but you're saying we should redirect them all nevertheless. ~Kvng (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is functionally the same as a redirect (and well, there is absolutely nothing that prevents anybody scouring through the edit history of the redirects to include the material in the main article). What few have "some non-stats coverage" is not nearly enough for a full article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have significantly expanded the article in the past hour. CT55555 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article per WP:SIGCOV, and procedural keep all the others, some of which might be notable and others less so. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic area clearly needs improvement but WP:NOTCLEANUP. All of this can be handled through merges and redirects. All of these titles are valid search terms and do not need to be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Failing WP:NOTSTATS is not something that can be cleaned up short of starting all over form scratch; so in the vast majority of cases here there is nothing of substance to keep. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read it in recent hours, I have significantly expanded it and added the exact information that a delete voter said was needed to change their mine. CT55555 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't seem to be enough for a full, stand-alone article. A redirect (with potential merge for the articles which actually have something to them) still seems more appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe coverage of specific Guatemalans, or even groups of Guatemalans, in Canada is sufficient for GNG. We would want more coverage of the diaspora as a whole; simply grouping "temp workers from Guatemala" and "Guatemalan refugees" as two examples of Guatemalan Canadians is OR/SYNTH. Such piecemeal coverage could be used to justify a standalone on practically any minor intersection (like Guatemalan Ontarians), but there is a reason we have the WP:NOTEVERYTHING instruction. With such limited content, the material would be more useful and visible in the Latin American Canadians page. JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these should be deleted. They should either be kept, merged or redirected depending on their state. Since you've nominated them as a group I'm responding as a group with something that will work for all in the group. If you want to nominate them individually, for each case, please justify why you think they should be deleted rather than redirected. ~Kvng (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Latin American Canadians, without prejudice to recreating the articles selectively if actual significant coverage is found about any of the specific national diasporas in Canada. At the moment, these articles contain very little other than database-type information and lists of notable people of said ethnicities, but no actual content about the diasporas themselves. Some of the content is also trivial; for example, is the press release-sourced content about Salvadoran Canadians working at a meat packing plant really enough upon which to base an article on that diaspora? I contend that it is not. That being, any sourced content that is actually relevant would better serve to expand the History section of the target article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somewhat apparent lack of BEFORE here. I find 1,000+ hits for "Cuban Canadian" on newspapers.com with a search since 1961 in Canadian newspapers, the first page of the results contains SIGCOV articles from The Ottowa Citizen, Edmonton Journal dealing with that community. "Mexican Canadian" turns up 2,000+ hits with the first page of results showing articles on the Mexican Canadian community. Yes, yes, of course there will be articles about Canada-Cuba-Mexcio intergovernmental relations etc, but it appears that there are multiple articles dealing with the communities in mainstream Canadian newspapers. I'd encourage a separating out of the nominations here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Latin American Canadians. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV from the sources already present in the articles. Even if that were not the case, there are plenty of academic journal articles on these topics in publications like the Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies (for example see this article for Guatemalan Canadians ). Clearly a WP:BEFORE search was not followed. While the articles themselves could use some fleshing out, that has no impact on notability. These are topics with significant coverage in published academic writing and the articles could be expanded if we utilized the published sources available in JSTOR, PROQUEST, etc.4meter4 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots to process, but this is a clear delete for me. I looked at the Guatemalan Civil War article listed as the main article for the Refugees section, and there's no mention of Canada. I went to the Temporary foreign worker program article listed in the next section, Seasonal workers, and there's no mention of Guatemalans. So at least in those two sections, putting those topics here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The last section is a one line mention of a folklore group, sourced with a diplomatic bulletin written by the Consul General of Guatemala in Montreal. Not a notable group, and it doesn't move the needle. I considered the redirect to Latin American Canadians proposed above, but there are no subsections about specific nationalities there, so merging anything more than the five people would make the target article unbalanced. If someone was willing to undertake the long arduous task of making a section for each of the cross-country matchup articles proposed for deletion, in articles similar to Latin American Canadians, maybe we might have something worthy of a merge, but I'd have to see it. Most of the sources are census statistics, imparting no more weight on this particular matchup than any other. I'd argue that we need more reliable sources for 26,000 migrants from one country to another to be noteworthy. Another problem - I looked at the list of notable Guatemalan Canadians, and not all of them are from Guatemala - rather, they have Guatemalan parentage. Since that's the only meaningful content left that applies to this topic, it seems we are essentially arguing to keep a list of people segmented by their parental lineage. Is that the best use of everyone's time? Look at this ongoing discussion about clarifying the citizenship status for someone who is quite notable AND has easily proven dual citizenship.Talk:Timothée Chalamet#RFC on nationality in the lead and shortdesc. I'm not seeing the point of keeping this one, so it's a delete. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's annoying that you called my editing original research when the data in the article is plain in sight. On seasonal work, I quote from the source, literally the opening line on the source Since 2003, Guatemala and Canada have productively implemented the mechanism of a temporary guest worker program, which has grown from a few hundred workers to close to 4,000 in 2010. Please be more careful. CT55555 (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - but still not enough. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Click (magazine)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this doesn't appear to be a notable magazine and aside from one mention in the archived and single source (https://web.archive.org/web/20101101104445/http://www.irishprinter.ie/print-awards-2010-page.html) I can't find any evidence it existed, the ISSN is not for this magazine and the claims here have been dubious from the start. In fact, their own website archives only start around 2011, prior to that it was some sort of business website and only ever appeared to be a placeholder otherwise. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG, WP:NWEB and WP:NPERIODICAL are not met. In a WP:BEFORE, I can just about find sources to confirm that the subject publication actually existed and to (barely) establish some very basic facts about it. While an archived version of the subject's own "spend your advertise budget with us" webpage lists a few "claims to fame", none are substantive (15,000 circulation? 6,000 Facebook fans? "Best Irish Magazine" 2009? On this last one, the same award noted by the nom, it seems to me that this was an award for the company that printed the magazine. Not the publisher. An award for print quality and binding. Rather than an award for content or editorial. Certainly all the other awards and noms went to printing companies. And not publishing companies...). Anyway. there are otherwise no sources (that I can find) to suggest that the subject was a notable publication, was covered by other sources/outlets in any substantive way, or had/has lasting relevance. (If not deleted, titled should be turned into a DAB page. As there are any number of magazines [current and former] with "Click" as title.) Guliolopez (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Miyas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. All of the sources are not adequate for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kadı Message 20:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Fashion, Germany, and Turkey. Kadı Message 20:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While some of the sources provide significant coverage, they are blatantly promotional in nature. A search yields similar content. Merko (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

This page was created by me. I wasn't active last two days. Today I have seen your tags and instructions, then I updated the page, added new credible sources. Please review it once more, if possible. Thank you for your effort. If something is not still right, please let me know. Thank you Junior wikipedian (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure where this subject would derive the notability from. not WP:GNG. Pamelagoo (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehul Thakker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Article is sourced entirely by primary sources, and I found no significant coverage of the subject in any WP:RS-compliant sources after doing a WP:BEFORE search on multiple search engines. Sal2100 (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Sal2100 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete state level candidates for any party below governor who are not elected to office are almost never notable. State level candidates for parties that baiscally always get trounced at all levels are virtually never notable even if they run for governor. There are no sources here that rise above routine coverage for defeated candidates and so no suggestion at all of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidates for political office do not meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Landels

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since NFOOTY is deprecated, a single appearance is no longer sufficient to justify keeping an article about a footballer. No indication that Landels ever returned to professional play after his single appearance in the big leagues. No GNG-compliant coverage located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One league appearance for Raith by itself does not in itself suggest notability and there is no sign of any other significant coverage (eg arising from his junior career). Dunarc (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the scary things is that people ever thought one league appareance actually was enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Left Hand of Gemini

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find anything online about this film except for some forum discussions suggesting it's likely an unfilmed episode of a never-made series called "Zodiac." -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That seems to be the case per this book, which mentions that the show was scrapped. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, this was to be a TV episode of a show that was ultimately scrapped. It's a shame since Ian McShane is amazing in pretty much everything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete finding nothing. The IMDb link is dead and I’m not finding a page listing it there, so I suspect outside of that zodiac mention (which I saw on a page for The Aries Computer) it doesn’t exist. Artw (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh wow, looking that one up is quite a ride. Artw (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is honestly pretty fascinating. It could make for a great news article about how these never created films sort of took on a life of their own. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that it actually existed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nettleton Court and Dudeney Lodge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL residential building, nothing notable stated in the article, no sources to demonstrate notability (in-depth significant coverage). The sources in the article are minor and/or routine. MB 18:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and England. MB 18:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, fails my standards for such housing estates. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've reviewed my Brighton sources. Nothing in any of them except as below. I will check Anthony Seldon's Brave New City when I get home: he may have something to say about them. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. If this closes as delete, these sources could be added to Hollingdean. NemesisAT (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point: the Hollingdean article needs some TLC. I have some other sources which cover it as well. Nothing in Brave New City about Nettleton and Dudeney. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Tim Carder, Encyclopaedia of Brighton (1990): just a passing mention.
- Brighton and Hove City Council, Brighton and Hove Urban Characterisation Study: 09 – Hollingdean: brief mentions as follows: The twin tower blocks, Dudeney Lodge and Nettleton Court, to the south of the neighbourhood opened in 1966.; and The landmarks are the two concrete high rise blocks, Nettleton Court and Dudeney Lodge, which are very typical of the 1960s.

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

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

The result was redirect to Alberta Party. Alternative to deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Erickson (Alberta politician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a former leader of a minor political party. While Wikipedia once had a rule that leaders of political parties were always "inherently" notable regardless of any sourceability problems, that's long since been deprecated -- now, a political party leader who was not personally a member of his or her party's elected legislative caucus for the purposes of passing WP:NPOL #1 is notable enough for a standalone article only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources, namely the party's own self-published website about itself and the government document tabulating the results of an election he didn't win, which are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alberta. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could have a brief mention in the Alberta Party article; no sources found otherwise. Only one hit, confirming his election results. Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alberta Party. Super minor party leaders have been decided by consensus to largely not be notable. This article is no exception. I would redirect this to the article for the party. Bkissin (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alberta Party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Leddy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a former leader of a minor political party. While Wikipedia once had a rule that leaders of political parties were always "inherently" notable regardless of any sourceability problems, that's long since been deprecated -- now, a political party leader who was not personally a member of his or her party's elected legislative caucus for the purposes of passing WP:NPOL #1 is notable enough for a standalone article only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing. But the only source being cited here at all is the party's own content about itself on its own self-published website, which is not a notability-supporting source. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alberta. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alberta Party. Per Bearcat's argument above. Article relies on a single SELFPUB source, subject would not meet GNG or NPOL. Perhaps there should be a move all of these leader biographies into an article List of Alberta Party leaders or something if the section in the article about the party becomes too big? Bkissin (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alberta Party#Leaders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Schorning

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a former leader of a minor political party. While Wikipedia once had a rule that leaders of political parties were always "inherently" notable regardless of any sourceability problems, that's long since been deprecated -- now, a political party leader who was not personally a member of his or her party's elected legislative caucus for the purposes of passing WP:NPOL #1 is notable enough for a standalone article only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing. But the only sources here are a government report which is not support for notability at all and a single brief media blurb which verifies a party merger while completely failing to mention Fred Schorning's name at all in conjunction with it, thus not fulfilling GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per very well reasoned argument of the nominator. We do not have the level of sources needed to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alberta Party#Leaders. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL, and I agree that the sourcing isn't enough for a GNG pass – the best I could find was a few passing mentions on ProQuest – but a redirect seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion since Schorning is already listed in that section. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Flake

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a former leader of a minor political party. While Wikipedia once had a rule that leaders of political parties were always "inherently" notable regardless of any sourceability problems, that's long since been deprecated -- now, a political party leader who was not personally a member of his or her party's elected legislative caucus for the purposes of passing WP:NPOL #1 is notable enough for a standalone article only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing. But the only sources here are a raw table of election results from an election he didn't win and the party's own internal newsletter, neither of which constitute support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alberta. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article does not meet our current criteria for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject. IrishOsita (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Waters (politician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a former leader of a minor political party. While Wikipedia once had a rule that leaders of political parties were always "inherently" notable regardless of any sourceability problems, that's long since been deprecated -- now, a political party leader who was not personally a member of his or her party's elected legislative caucus for the purposes of passing WP:NPOL #1 is notable enough for a standalone article only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing. But the only sources here are a raw table of election results from an election he didn't win and a glancing namecheck on one page of a book about somebody else, which isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alberta. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article lacks the level of sourcing we currently require for articles on a person with this position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep following improvement of the article. RL0919 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fujio Shido

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD originally tagged by Johnpacklambert. Reasoning was: The one reference here is not enough to show notability and chefs are not default notable just because someone somewhere once published a short blurd on them. Reasoning still holds. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one source is a passing mention that says this chef studied at a school in Paris, the school in question is also the publisher of the one reference. This is not an indepdent source, so does not add towards passing GNG. Beyond this GNG can never be passed by one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Pinging you to see if you want to reconsider your opinion now that the article has been redone. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've completely redone the article, adding several new and solid sources. It definitely passes GNG now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that I'm surprised I could find so many references on him given that he died before the internet was really a thing (about 6 years before it became a real thing with content outside of academia, science, and military stuff). And Japan lags about a decade behind North America in what you can find online, too, so many of the contemporary sources are only available in print. Given what I could find, I'm 100% sure there are many print sources I can't access online. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is in much better condition, and the sources seem to indicate notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and suggest withdrawing the nomination, the article as it stands now gives a clear indication of notability. nableezy - 00:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nihonjoe's research. Star Mississippi 02:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now has significant sources.Fulmard (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Maymudes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub has been in need of citations since 2012. Of the three current references, one is to IMDb, which is user-submitted content; and the other two, Rolling Stone and Publishers Weekly each contain one or two sentences about his Kickstarter campaign to finish his fathers book; none of which are SIGCOV nor establish notability. An online BEFORE search reveals social media, or advertising platforms like EIZO, or other user-submitted sites and blogs. While he has worked on the visual effects of a number of notable films, I'm not finding anything that an independent, verifiable reliable source has written about him in depth. He does not seem to meet WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE. I'm bringing it here for the community to weigh-in on. Netherzone (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Music, Entertainment, and Popular culture. Netherzone (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. IrishOsita (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. And this remained in mainspace for nearly 10 years? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is essentially a case of WP:G7; the only real contributor to the article requests deletion. The history shows that no substantial or substantive edits were made by anyone but the contributor, so there is no need to leave this AfD up for a week. JPL, thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denia Nixon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nixon was a beauty pagent contestant who did not get significant attention in reliable sources. The article is sourced only to a non-reliable source, and is on a living person. So we can justify it saying nothing. I created this article back when I incorrectly believed that basically all contestants in certain beauty pageants were default notable, I have since come to realize this is not the case. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While this topic is potentially of interest and notable, the article as it is does not establish notability. There is no prejudice against recreating this list with proper sources in the future if there is interest. Malinaccier (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of China

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, this list really takes the cake because it is inconsistent with its own inclusion criteria (This page lists only those people who appeared on Chinese stamps before the division of the country; and yet we have stuff from 2010 and 2013..).; because many of the entries are not even Chinese people (showing how this is an arbitrary listing by a trivial characteristic of otherwise entirely unrelated people); and because, of course, it does not cite a single source, which for what one would think are stamps from a fair bit ago, makes even the usual claims from PhilatelyCRUFT that the contents list can be "easily verified" entirely implausible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an unsouced list. We have no evidence it actually meets the criteria for a list. Plus no one seems to really know what scope it has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It says it is only for pre-division, but that would be inconsistent with every other use of China in Wikipedia. Also considering "pre-division" Taiwan was under Japanese rule for most of the first half of the 20th-century, even calling the splitting off of Taiwan "division" seems to be the wrong wording. Plus the list does not comply with its own parameters, and there are no sources. It has existed since 2006. Unsourced articles should not last over 15 days, let alone over 15 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just like most of these other lists, it's unsourced, horribly incomplete, has arbitrary inclusion criteria, and even if the names can be verified in a catalog, there's zero proof that the underlying topic is one worth making a list out of. All of these stamp AFDs, even the ones closed as "keep", have failed to prove why the lists are "useful" or "notable" or whatever WP:ATA wants to be thrown around today. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article then move List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China to this title Ignoring the NLIST concern here, it makes no sense to partition it to the dynasties period and the current period. I would of said to merge them first but the list is unsourced. Perhaps that article would also fail NLIST but that is the subject for another AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 06:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpytoo (talk · contribs), would you support my proposal below to retain the article history under a redirect? Cunard (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with a drafticiation or userification. Jumpytoo Talk 22:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting the retention of the page history. From Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions, "The MediaWiki software does not allow page history to be publicly archived at a page title that does not host a live page or redirect. Therefore, if two pages with parallel histories are merged but it is undesirable to keep a redirect from the deprecated page title to the destination page title, the old page history needs to move. This is sometimes done by moving the page history to a subpage of the talk page of the destination page. An example can be found at Talk:Compilation of Final Fantasy VII#Old page history."
Although this is not a parallel versions case, the guide says that "moving the page history to a subpage of the talk page of the destination page" is an option. I would support either this or moving to draft followed by a redirect to List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China so that the useful history is preserved to assist in searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move the article history of List of people on the postage stamps of China to another title and redirect it to List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China after the latter is moved to List of people on the postage stamps of China per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. As an editor who began work on sourcing List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China and adding a "History" section, I find the content of this article to be valuable even if it is unsourced. The list can be used to find sources about the dynasties period aspect of the topic which can aid a selective merge to the article that currently discusses only the current period.
Today, I did work on adding a 511-word "History" section to List of people on the postage stamps of Hong Kong and sourcing entries on the list, which had previously been completely unsourced. I would not have been able to expand the Hong Kong article that well without the help of the unsourced entries in the list, which substantially aided me in searching for more sources about the topic.
Cunard (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I still do not see how any of this justifies a complete list or a content fork from postage stamps and postal history of Hong Kong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding list of people on the postage stamps of Hong Kong (which after these edits now has a 652-word history as well as every entry on the list sourced), it would be undue weight to include the list in postage stamps and postal history of Hong Kong. A complete list is justified because the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. Cunard (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Lupe. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of proper sourcing. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Verifiability, no reliable sources. Avilich (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:FORK. While a list of this type could be sourced, it is an unnecessary content fork of List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China.4meter4 (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: List of people on the postage stamps of China discusses people on postage stamps from 1878–1949, while List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China discusses people on postage stamps from 1949–present. I agree that there is no need to have two separate articles. 4meter4 (talk · contribs), would you support preserving the history as I suggested above and converting this article into a redirect to the other article? It is useful to retain the history to assist in finding sources and merging material from this article into the other article. Cunard (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a completely unreferenced list, I am not seeing a benefit in preserving article history. I think you are overstating the usefulness of this list.4meter4 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Gelael

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was using the page curation tool to create this AfD and it didn't automatically complete this page, I'm sorry to report. On the merits, the assertion of importance or significance is that he built a grocery business and obtained a KFC franchise in a highly populated place. This seems an incredibly low bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'll AGF the Indonesian sources check out. If there's any material keepable this might be covered better at Sean Gelael, the subject's sole connection to any notability. Being the grandfather of a sports car driver is also a pretty low bar for inclusion. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources are insufficient. Maybe there are some Indonesian sources someone can find and add. Does not meet notability based on existing sources.Craigwikiman (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pharzoof

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another incredibly minor comic book character, whose article is completely unsourced. According to a DC wiki, the character only ever appeared in a single storyline. Searching for sources brought up no coverage at all in reliable, secondary sources, thus the character is a complete failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Rorshacma (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nom sums it up nicely. I can’t see a very good redirect option except maybe New Gods. I wouldn’t oppose that, but I don’t think it’s really worth it for the other two incoming links. - 2pou (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article completely fails the WP:GNG due to a lack of sources. Would accept a redirect as per 2pou. Jontesta (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would suggest turning it into a redirect, but it doesn't seem like many people would search for him specifically. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: P. Zero references, fails WP:V and WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real sources, and fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of knowledge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this may be a notable topic but severely in need of WP:TNT as it's a massive essay with very little thats identifiable as encyclopedic. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Praxidicae, I do not mean to be rude but I would ask you to not just blindly throw wikipedia guidelines at the article in the hope that one sticks. You criticized the article based on the claims that (1) it needs more citations, (2) the topic lacks notability, and (3) it merely expresses personal feelings. Now you throw the new criticism of WP:TNT against it. I challenged each of your claims and provided good reasons against them at User_talk:Phlsph7#Definitions_of_knowledge_moved_to_draftspace. Instead of explaining or defending your claims, you just moved on to another supposed shortcoming. In order to avoid wasting more time, I would ask that you take the time to familiarize yourself with the article and to consider your criticisms carefully before stating them. This way, you should be able to substantiate, explain, and defend them when they are challenged instead of just hurrying to find a new likely guideline to throw at it. So please be concrete: cite the passages you see as problematic, explain why you think so, and respond to the arguments presented so far otherwise. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not throwing them around in hopes that they stick; this is a massive essay chock full of WP:OR with no meaningful or cohesive point. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make me ask you again: which passages are WP:OR? Please start with the most severe cases. If you claim that some passages are original research then it's your responsibility to point out which passages. If these claims have references then it's also your responsibility to point out why these references are not sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to point out every single piece of OR here - it's a massive time sink and I don't appreciate threats. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out at least one or are you unable to? If the article is "a massive essay chock full of WP:OR" then this should be very easy. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claims that the article has "very little thats identifiable as encyclopedic" and that it has "no meaningful or cohesive point": The article has a very clear structure. The lead is made up of 4 paragraphs. The first paragraph summarizes the section "General characteristics and disagreements". It explains what definitions of knowledge aim to accomplish and why there is so much disagreement in the academic literature. The second paragraph summarizes the section "Traditional definition", which talks about the traditionally dominant way how knowledge is defined: knowledge is justified true belief. The third paragraph summarizes the sections "Gettier problem and cognitive luck" and "Responses and alternative definitions". It explains the criticisms of the traditional definition and discusses alternatives suggested in the academic literature. The fourth paragraph summarizes the section "Non-propositional knowledge" and talks about how other types of knowledge are defined. I think the structure here is very clear. Similar structures are found in various reliable sources, such as here or here. If you still believe that there is no meaningful or cohesive point then please take the time to respond to this summary by providing a detailed explanation of your reasons.

Regarding the claim of WP:OR: the article cites a total of 53 sources, all of which are reliable. They are a good mix of journal articles, books and encyclopedia entries. Each paragraph has several of these sources as references. The lead is an exception since it just provides a summary without adding any new information. This is in accordance with WP:CITELEAD. Given this fact, the claim that the article is full of original research is not obvious in any way. The burden of proof is on you. Your inability or unwillingness to cite any passages whatsoever with this alleged fault, despite repeated requests to do so, does not throw a good light on your criticism. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support keeping this article and developing it to coordinate with other pages. There is some overlap with the epistemology article but the two pages could work together with more detail here..Hinterlander1 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: there are some overlaps. The definition of knowledge is a central topic in epistemology, but epistemology also includes various additional topics that are not directly related to the definition of knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the analysis of knowledge is a massively central area of epistemology, especially post-Gettier. On a brief look over the page, I can't see any problems major enough to warrant TNT - if Praxidicae can provide some additional reasoning as to why they think TNT is appropriate I may change my vote but for now solidly keep on the basis of obvious notability of the subject. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is obviously a notable topic in epistemology. The references contain many reliable sources. Reading through some passages, they look fine, at least to his non-expert. That leaves us with the possible criticisms: essay-like, may not be neutral, synthesis of sources leading to original research, or significant overlap with another article. This is a very new article and all of these are in principle fixable with editing and possible merging, not deletion. WP:TNT is a high bar and is usually applied to articles that are near incomprehensible or so hopelessly biased there is nothing worth salvaging. I don't see either of those applying here. Unless there is some massive problem I am missing, this seems a clear keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an important topic, as easily demonstrated by the fact that there's a Stanford Encyclopedia article on the same topic. Reading over the article I don't see any major issues, and I certainly don't see any original research or anything that I wouldn't expect. There is a fair bit of overlap with Epistemology - but it's fairly clear to me that information should be merged out of that article into this one as that article covers a very broad topic in philosophy. The only major issues I can see here are information that might be missing (pre-Socratics, indian theories, etc) but that is certainly no reason for deletion - it's a fine start in my opinion. I certainly see no immediate justification for WP:TNT, nor was any such justification given by the nominator. - car chasm (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus is either to keep the article as is, or redirect. Neither action requires deletion and can be done by any editor. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Silverman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Single work cited and that a 'critical introduction' rather than ground breaking research that "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" - those sources missing from this article and, indeed, search (who knew there were that many Daniel Silvermans in academia?). Also fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. Looks like WP:AUTHOR is most relevant. There are two blue-linked books, each of which cites three reviews. The Cambridge University Press book is also likely to have been reviewed. The 1997 book Phasing and Recoverability has 283 citations, which suggests there might be (offline) reviews for that one too, ETA: and indeed one is already referenced in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the two books are volumes of a series with joint reviews. There is also a review for Phasing and Recoverability in the article from "The LINGUIST List", but that's probably not reliable. Don't object to redirection, merging the two book articles; it's wasteful to have three articles on this topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was just the second edition of the book, slightly retitled? At least, that's what I thought the "(2nd Edition)" in the article meant. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the (single) book. I can't find reviews for the other ones, and I would want to see reviews of multiple books for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Notability (academics), criteria 1 and 4. For example, you can see the citations for Phasing and Recoverability. It provides a hypothesis based on which different scholars work on other topics (see here). As to the WP:AUTHOR: Although published in Linguist list, this review by Kimary Shahin (Birzeit University/University of British Columbia) and this review by Stefan Frisch (University of Michigan) are both reliable (edited by Andrew Carnie). The textbook (in 3rd edition) is an evidence for criterion 4. Library holdings should also be considered regarding notability. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Notability is largely dependent on a single book. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the article is a stub at can't be saved in its initial form. --Bigneeerman (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thiruvennainallur block

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No content, extremely short stub, and potentially trivial. MxYamato (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Revenue blocks of Tamil Nadu has 379 articles, out of 1,349 Revenue blocks the state apparently has. They're pretty much all in this poor of a condition without explanation of why they're a notable subdivision in addition to the districts (taluks) when they're only used for tax-related administration. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revenue blocks seem to be administrative units in some way which probably satisfies GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete From what I see in the revenue block article, these are purely administrative divisions about which almost nothing can be said beyond which state they're in and which villages they contain. My impression is that they fail WP:GNG in that there's no real way to make a claim of notability about any of them. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reywas92. - SUN EYE 1 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keko Hainswheeler

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Popular but references are passing mentions or non-existant at best. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 08:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator seems to be sockmaster. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's mentioned in every source presented, but it's all in passing. No articles about this fellow, he's only ever mentioned briefly in the articles. Socking doesn't help his case. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmona Ameer

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Pakistan. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, may have taken part in a major competition but doesn't have the coverage for WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Keener

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant roles or contributions. – Ploni (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Florida. Ploni (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guest roles, short films, not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not have multiple significant roles in notable productions which is the minimum requirement to have an actor on someone involved in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob T. Gaffney

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP:BIO, probably self-promotional? Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what utter nonsense. This is nothing more than exaggerated vanity spam with no sources to back anything up, about a non-notable person. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Kazakhstan, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject (or an associate) is trying to use Wikipedia to publish his resume, but Wikipedia is not for resumes. This is a case of too soon. The subject has also created a draft, so deletion will leave the draft standing (for possible improvements if there are real achievements). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable, vanity page.
Delete - The subjec2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing else to add MaskedSinger (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Changazi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am admittedly not intimately familiar with Pakistani cinema, but the subject appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. – Ploni (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Ploni (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found only one reliable source for him: The News. It is a partial interview, obviously not sufficient to establish notability. Insight 3 (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Craig (actor)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant roles or contributions. – Ploni (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, England, and Canada. Ploni (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting our minimum threshold for notability for those involved in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The standard of discussion has been unhelpful, and I can't see any firm agreement on what to do with the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The earlier AfD reached a faulty outcome and should not have been closed as keep, because this list still fails WP:NOT and because none of the sources actually talk specifically about "people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands" as a group (which is what is required per WP:LISTN); only about the broader topic of "postage stamps of the Faroe Islands" (with occasional mention of people appearing on them, but no discussion of said people as a group). The keep arguments from last time were similarly entirely anti-policy claims that it "is clearly notable and of importance" or that this is a useful "reference work"; or arguments that the existence of the stamps is easily verifiable (the existence of all of the streets of Paris is also easily verifiable, yet that is not a sufficient reason for inclusion on Wikipedia - see also WP:BUTITEXISTS). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If someone wants to change Wikipedia policy about lists, please open a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), rather than through disruptive repeats. This list was discussed only 2 weeks ago, with solid evidence and references added that stamps are used as a part of the Faroes govenment's shaping of a Faroese national identity. Thus, these people are chosen because of their role in Faoese society and history. IMHO, RandomCanadian are aguing against strawmen in his summary of the keep arguments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands. Pinging: @Valjean, PamD, Efloean, and Bookworm857158367:. Bw Orland (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is unambiguous WP:CANVAS by pinging only those who voted keep at the past AfD. My arguments are not strawmen.
1. a sourced list of people that the Faroese themselves consider important enough to be on their stamps: just as valid as the many "Hall of Fame" lists we see. These are notable people [...] is literally "this is notable because the people included in it are notable";
2. Since the Faroese government took charge of the postal service in th 1970's, the stamps have had a role in shaping the Faroese national identity. is a fallacy of pertinence as the argument is not that the stamps are unsignificant but that a list of people who appear on them doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia.
3. this is not an indiscriminate list, but has encyclopedic value as a reference work is obviously ITSUSEFUL.
4. The topic is clearly notable and of importance is obviously WP:Clearly notable.
In short, the previous AFD is nothing but a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which goes very much at odds with broader community consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing? It was a snow keep! The only one voting against was the nominator, and you're repeating their mistake. A {{trout}} to you for this disruptive AfD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People making terrible arguments at AfD (like you here) is a persistent problem, and pointing them out is not disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should be kept for all of the reasons it was kept before. A referenced list of significant figures and events, etc, of importance to a country is of general notability. There really needs to be a rule against submitting multiple requests for deletion when an editor doesn’t get the desired result. Someone obviously has it out for all of these stamp articles. They are all notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the same nonsense "its notable because people in it are notable". That is not how Wikipedia works. Notability is not inherited; and it requires verifiable evidence, not broad assertions of personal preference. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This particular list is generally notable and relevant because the government of this country chose to put them on its stamps. Citations and references have been provided. The last decision was keep. Another deletion nomination so soon afterwards is not appropriate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this list is not notable because its topic (that of "people on the postage stamps of the Faroes Islands") has neet been covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:SIGCOV). That the last discussion reached an obvious WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at odds with this and broader community policy is a perfectly valid reason to ignore it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said above. This should be closed as a speedy keep and the nominator should be encouraged to seek a policy change at the appropriate forum. This isn’t it and another deletion nomination is nothing more than sour grapes. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a policy change because this article has always failed it. People refusing to recognise this and coming up with arguments which are fallacies of pertinence or otherwise invalid does not change that fact. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can confirm that these people are on the stamps. But can we confirm that the subject of them being on stamps is a noteworthy topic? So far no one has proven that, and literally everyone saying keep in the last AFD and this one alike are just saying "it's notable because it's notable". I could make List of Family Fare locations; would you argue that such a list would be notable just because Family Fare is notable and sources can confirm that yes, there is indeed a Family Fare in Munising, Michigan? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list, but has encyclopedic value as a reference work of the most notable people of the islands. The list has biographical, philatelic, and artistic value. The nominator deserves a trout for disruption for doing this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Clearly notable which again fails to propose a single source to back up its claims. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under what policy should it be kept, though? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources or not, the consensus is overwhelming that this fails WP:SALAT. This one went awry by a bunch of WP:ITSNOTABLE votes, none of which hold any water in AFD. The first AFD should have been relisted, not closed, given the lack of foundation on the keep votes. I think RandomCanadian was hasty in re-nominating this so soon and would have been better off taking it to DRV, but I also think that no one has proven based in policy why this is a worthy list. Yes, we can confirm that these people were on stamps. But can we confirm that the subject of them being on stamps is notable? Has "people who have been on Faroe Island stamps" itself been discussed by any of the sources? So far it seems not to be the case. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing here is not enough to justify a list. It does not meet the defined scope and limits for lists. People can discuss important cases and trends related to this in Postage stamps and postal history of the Faroe Islands, but a freestanding list that seeks to cover every single person ever appearing on a stamp of the Faroe Islands is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Faroe Islands is a small country with a small population, so this article fails the [[5]]. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (Talk) 17:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's got to be one of the most bogus and self-invented reasons I've ever seen here since 2003. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I couldn't find enough coverage from reliable sources for this topic to warrant its own article. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's very different than "small country with a small population". That was a shameful argument. Large or small, the decisions of all countries enjoy notability, and when they decide a certain person is notable, then, for that country, that person is notable. Very few citizens are notable enough for a postage stamp, so it's really a big deal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't a discussion about the notability of the people who have been depicted on stamps: rather, it's a discussion about specifically the notability/suitability of the topic of "People on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands"; and notability, unlike the English monarchy, is not inherited: the people can be notable without the stamps depicting them being notable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      
      Some countries are more notable than others. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list is informative --Lupe (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such an argument-free comment warrants an equally brief reply. Go see WP:ITSINTERESTING. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Informative is not the same as interesting. Meaning this is not just a list of random names, but one with contextual information, the necessary references and a well defined scope. Lupe (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the result of the AfD closed less than two weeks ago. If the nom is unhappy about the result, the correct venue is deletion review. NemesisAT (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a policy based reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and keep, as the reason for this AfD per nom is that last AfD (two weeks ago!) reached a "faulty outcome". Agree with NemesisAT, the next step for this should be WP:DRV, not another AfD just two weeks after the last one. Merko (talk)
And then at DRV people are going to complain how "everybody voted keep" despite the fact AfD is not supposed to be a headcount. Sometimes it is just better to start a brand new discussion instead of relitigating one which is fatally flawed. Repeated nominations of a page is otherwise not at all a valid reason to keep it, nor is it a valid reason for a speedy close. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have already argued in the previous nomination that this list not only include noteworthy people from Faroese history—which I understand isn't enough—but also is an honour to these persons from the Faroese society. The nominator forgot this part of my argument in his quotation. I believe that content included in Wikipedia should somehow be justified, no doubt about it. I have yet to learn why a list of recipients of this particular honour is less noteworthy, interesting or whatever, than others. If we read WP:SALAT more carefully, we can all agree on that the scope for this list isn't too broad. Then the question is whether it's too narrow, like a "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana", while fun, is a random characteristic. Being depicted in Faroese stamps is clearly not a random characteristic, and it is possible to draw general conclusions on the selection. I believe that to the intent of the guideline. And a list of people on postage stamps is clearly more tangible than a "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", for that matter. Efloean (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already argued in the previous nomination that this list not only include noteworthy people from Faroese history—which I understand isn't enough—but also is an honour to these persons from the Faroese society. Wikipedia is not a meritocracy. Notability is based on coverage in sources, not on individual Wikipedians thinking that WP:ITSIMPORTANT. and it is possible to draw general conclusions on the selection without a source, that would be WP:OR, which is again unacceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is still not that I, as an individual Wikipedia editor, think that these people are important, but that the Faroese believe so, which is justified by sources. When I wrote "possible to draw general conclusions", I understandably didn't mean that we should draw these conclusions ourselves, but rely on sources. While we might have strong opinions in these discussions, I hope we could keep them more collegial by recognizing the arguments and giving eachother the benefit of the doubt. We are in this together, after all. Efloean (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that these people are important Except that is not what is being discussed here. Nobody is saying "the people on the list are not notable"; what is said is that there is no evidence this particular group of people is notable as a group; i.e. there are no proper sources which specifically discuss the group of "people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands" in a way from which we can write something meaningful for our readers. Failing sources from which to do this (or draw general conclusions from, as you suggest); then this does not warrant a separate page on Wikipedia. Generally, I think the few instances where a given's person appearance on a stamp is notable or otherwise singled out by sources should probably be mentioned directly on that person's article; or on the respective country's postage stamps / postal history page. These lists do nothing in accomplishing that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have this one thing in common; they are chosen and pointed out as important to their country. Much in the same way as List of Knights of the Order of the Elephant. Bw Orland (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't care if they are important to their country. If the group as a whole has not received significant coverage in WP:RS, then whether they are important to their country is utterly irrelevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the recent AfD. (WP:DRV is the way to challenge an AfD whose outcome you don't think correct.) This list informs the reader about the set of people selected as of signicance to the country: a local Hall of Fame, and an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 04:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's still WP:ITSIMPORTANT/WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a policy-based reason to keep without WP:RS to back it up. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- RandomCanadian, you're reaching disruptive levels of badgering and WP:BLUDGEONing behavior. At my count, you've made 16 comments in this discussion. Reiterating yourself if you have felt misunderstood once or twice is fine, but at this point we know what you are voting for. Repeating it 15 more times is not useful and actually makes it more difficult to parse consensus. Please give it a break. No one is confused about what your position is at this point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because you didn't like the results of the last AfD doesn't mean it's time to open another one. Wikipedia, like the real world, relies to some extent on stare decisis. I.e., sometimes we let imperfect decisions stand because to frequently re-litigate issues would suck up our time and reduce the finality of certain contentious processes. You want policy? Reopening recently closed discussions is WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:POINTY. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable based on the sources in the article. Deletion review is the correct process if an editor thinks an AfD was closed incorrectly. CT55555 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This also seems like it should be WP:SNOWBALL closed as keep. CT55555 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very soon after the previous AfD for another one. Deletion review is the proper process in this situation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This entire nomination violates WP:POINT and WP:DEADHORSE, as it was closed recently. Also, the nominator has violated WP:BLUDGEON, as shown above. This can be renominated in a couple months. Or, if the nom believes there was an error in the previous nomination, use WP:DRV.--74.101.118.197 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason. People making non-policy based arguments really have no legitimate reason to complain when this gets pointed out. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Harding (actor)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to have had any significant roles in any notable productions. – Ploni (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Zealand. Ploni (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of dams and reservoirs in Japan#Ehime Prefecture. Hog Farm _Talk 14:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiura-ike Dam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this small dam is a notable subject. Just like roads, bridges, ... dams aren't automatically notable, and while many will be discussed in independent sources (as major constructions with a profound impact on the landscape), other ones like this (which basically create a pond, nothing more) will be largely ignored and fail WP:N. Fram (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Japan. Fram (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. nirmal (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - this is an artificial infrastructure being a dam, and so GNG applies per WP:GEOFEAT. This particular dam is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, and so it should be redirected to List of dams and reservoirs in Japan. MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of dams and reservoirs in Japan#Ehime Prefecture It exists. It is citable that it exists to handbooks of dams in Japan. That is all I found (in terms of reliable sources, there are a few WP:SPS blogs that cover the dam but not useful). Jumpytoo Talk 06:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You wouldn't delete this if it were in an English speaking country. This is a one hundred year old dam, a significant infrastructure project that affected lives for more than a century.Fulmard (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would delete this but since we have two votes for it already I'm going to have to say redirect per above. And I'm afraid that in this English-speaking country it's far more likely that we wouldn't bother naming such a small dam in the first place: there are two a short drive from my house that are each four times larger than this one which have no names. Mangoe (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E'Shun Melvin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Easily fails WP:NACTOR. No significant roles or contributions. – Ploni (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Texas. Ploni (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Roles he has had are not significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR, and no independent coverage appears to exist to either verify the articles contents or notability. MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, no significant roles found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The writing style suggests some sort of COI and/or paid editing. Does not meet WP:NACTOR based on acting credits, and fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Olive

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written mostly by the subject himself, and fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Ireland. Ploni (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is a categorical disaster in terms of quality...written by its subject, reads like a resume, lacking in neutrality, promotional, claims of all sorts of appearances in works without citations. That said, AFD is not clean-up and if the notability standards are met the article could warrant inclusion. Sadly the subject does not meet standards. Google shows up nothing, and the sources available on the internet archive were blogsites and primary sources. He does not meet the standards at WP:NACTOR as there is no appearance in multiple notable works. Indeed the only somewhat notable TV show he is said to appear in does not even include him in the main cast at his Wikipedia page. We cannot even verify most of this article due to the lack of sources. Clear case of deletion. MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources I find are a photographer of an artificial hip joint, nothing notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 12:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um Sang-back

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only references is to stats-only in a database. Tagged for this since April 26th with no change. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Prior to March 2022, the KBO League was part of WP:NBASEBALL such that appearing in even one game created a presumption of notability. However, that participation criteria was eliminated. That said, Um Sang-back has had a seven-year career as a pitcher in the KBO from 2015 to the present, appearing in 232 games and facing 1,783 batters. A google search turns up quite a bit -- see here. The Korean Wikipedia page can be found here. I don't have the language skills to analyze the sources and can only hope that we have someone who can analyze the coverage to help assess whether there's SIGCOV sufficient for a GNG pass. Cbl62 (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 232 games and 1700 batters would suggest notability, that's a rather long career in any league Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 12:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Jun-ho

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only sources is stats-only in a database. Tagged since April 26th with no change North8000 (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. A search for 하준호 finds a number of results on Google News, and though a quick look doesn't find any WP:SIGCOV, it might exist - draftifying will give the creator time to find and add those sources, if they exist. BilledMammal (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if google translate is correct, there is SIGCOV here, here and here, enough for a GNG pass (not to mention he has played 99 games in a league that previously gave a notability presumption for one gamers...) BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect one, delete rest. Will redirect 2022 FIFAe Nations Series (the article was moved during the AfD) to FIFAe Nations Series. The rest will be deleted. RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIFAe Nations Series 2022

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines, hardly a stub, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Relevant information should simply be at FIFAe Nations Series.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, as well as WP:FANCRUFT:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 17:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (waaaaayyy) WP:TOOSOON. These spin-outs aren't even close to necessary and have virtually no content of substance anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FIFAe Nations Series: Not notable enough for its own article, does warrant its own section in the 'parent' article for FIFAe Nations Series, in my view. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 17:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see an argument for a redirect for FIFAe Nations Series 2022, but the other three? – Pbrks ^(t • c) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, to be clear, this vote is only for FIFAe Nations Series 2022, the others should be Deleted in my opinion. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 17:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Same. I went with delete because I felt like most weren't really plausible search terms. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I can see that. I think people looking for the particular 'championship' for this year might search the specific year, in which case it would be handy to redirect to the section for this year (which currently doesn't exist yet), just my two cents though. I'd be perfectly content with deleting the FIFAe Nations Series 2022 entry as well. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 18:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect FIFAe Nations Series 2022 to FIFAe Nations Series and delete the rest of them - nothing worth keeping really. Only worth redirecting the main one because it's just about a plausible search term. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tabcorp. ✗plicit 12:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ubet (company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization failing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The references aren't indicating any sign of notability. Chirota (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per below; that's a better solution. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 02:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC) ~~{{{1}}}~~[reply]
Again, redirect to Tabcorp as a very valid alternative to deletion. Not sure why this isn't being suggested by the nominator. Deus et lex (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tabcorp as WP:ATD. I'm unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tabcorp. Ubet was rebranded to TAB with the 2017 merger to Tabcorp and Tatts Group. Plenty of media coverage to support this. Include Ubet information within the Tabcorp article. Mantuku (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton City School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NORG. Small school district with one school. Sources are self-published (the school website) and a database entry. No in-depth independent coverage. MB 06:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Tennessee. MB 06:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm in the process of having my access to Newspapers.com renewed, so hopefully I can look for published sources ASAP. The notability of school districts is based upon Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts which states: ""Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-inherent notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography)" (this would be the same principle why an incorporated municipality with a few people is still considered to be notable).

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts and other locations not commonly recognized as a place are not presumed to be notable. WP:GNIS and GEONet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are unreliable for "populated place" designation.[1][2]"

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I am now finding reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm fine with WhisperToMe's reasoning; I just want to note that the article name is currently Dayton City School, whereas the database entry lists just Dayton, implying the name to be Dayton School District or something of the like. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a school district (see this). And the title appears to be correct. As WtM said, school districts are NGEO notable. This isn't unique or even that unusual. Illinois has dozens of single school districts. 174.212.228.60 (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. NGEO says school districts are presumed to be notable. That means probably, but not necessarily. If there are insufficient sources to establish notability and write more than a stub, we don't have to have a separate article. If Illinois has dozens of single school districts, any with just minimal information like in this one could be listed in a table in List of small school districts in Illinois or something like that. MB 16:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @MB: I found some sources about the 1951 school fire and a 1952 rebuilding. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the IP. I am not aware of any policy that requires us to merge the content to another article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After extended time for discussion and the spilling of a great deal of electronic ink, we have a clear absence of consensus for deletion (and a clear absence of consensus on whether sources provided are applicable). It is noteworthy, however, that there is a substantial contingent favoring redirection to the parent company (which is indisputably highly notable itself, and is capable of having independently notable subtopics), and that substantial expansion of the article was undertaken, tracking with an increasing shift towards keeping the article as the discussion progressed. BD2412 T 01:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Chapter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

afaict this isn't a notable subsidiary of P&G, attempted to redirect but it's been contested. Everything about NC is just run of the mill stuff you'd expect for any business, especially subsidiaries. There's nothing truly in depth. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the P&G Proctor and Gamble article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here’s an article in the Wall Street Journal about the founders regrets about selling to P&G: [6] Thriley (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically a glorified interview and not even substantially about the company itself. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like a feature article to me and is supportive of meeting WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent sources, especially for businesses. ––FormalDude talk 16:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's not really a place for this information to be put on the Procter & Gamble article, and a redirect would leave the detail out. Stub articles are okay. It's difficult to research online because there is a tremendous amount of online advertising getting in the way of searches. Let's let the discussion play out and do some research here, no need to rush.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can be discussed in the section that already discusses subsidiaries. There's nothing more encyclopedic that can be said about it because it isn't notable in its own right. And this isn't rushing, it's a 7 day long AFD. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's rushing because so far today I removed a speedy deletion on the article and another editor blanked the page and added a redirect without any discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects don't need a discussion if they're not controversial per WP:BOLD and WP:ATD. So I boldly did so and now it's here. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep did some research and digging through, and there is now enough in the article to pass WP:GNG with multiple sources. Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera, etc. Likely will remain a stub, but let's not confuse stub-status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. WP:ORGCRIT is the applicable guideline. My assessment is that the topic is not notable based on the existing sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Al Jazeera	No COIs	RSP	There is only one mention of New Chapter and no substantial discussion. All it does is confirm that Procter & Gamble owns New Chapter.	✘ No
Wall Street Journal	It is based solely on information from the founders and is therefore not independent.	RSP	Covers the topic substantially.	✘ No
Cincinnati Business Insider	As an interview, it is a primary source.	RSP	Covers the topic enough.	✘ No
HerbalGram	A glorified press release.	peer-reviewed, quarterly journal	Covers the topic substantially.	✘ No
NutraIngredients	As an interview, it is a primary source.	? Unclear	Covers the topic.	✘ No
Brattleboro Reformer	As an interview, it is a primary source.	Reputable newspaper	Discusses the topic at length.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

––FormalDude talk 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer the following "alternative perspective" to the table above, including correcting what I think might be typos in the first column last two records of the table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Al Jazeera	No COIs	RSP	Confirm not only that Procter & Gamble owns New Chapter, but also holds it out as an example as one of three companies that make up "the bulk of the industry" and therefore speaks to WP:IMPACT.	✔ Yes
Wall Street Journal	Interviews and information from the founders are standard research for a story that would be published in a quality source like Wall Street Journal	RSP	Covers the topic substantially.	✔ Yes
Cincinnati Business Insider	Is not a primary source but instead is a story written by a staff reporter	RSP	Covers the topic enough.	✔ Yes
HerbalGram	Press releases--even when reprinted by reliable sources--are generally not considered for notability but can be used for validation.	peer-reviewed, quarterly journal	Covers the topic substantially.	✘ No
Brattleboro Reformer (not "NutraIngredients" as originally posted)	Researched article by reporter for an independent newspaper	Brattleboro Reformer has been published since 1876 and is a reputable newspaper	Covers the topic.	✔ Yes
NutraIngredients (not "Cincinnati Business Insider" as originally posted)	Not affiliated with subject material or topics, is independent	? Unclear	Discusses the topic at length.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're not aware that interviews are considered primary, non-independent sources per WP:ORG. ––FormalDude talk 17:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like the directions on WP:ORG: "A feature story is usually a longer article where the writer has researched and interviewed to tell a factual story about a person, place, event, idea, or issue. Features are not opinion-driven and are more in-depth than traditional news stories." The sources in question are feature stories and not simply "memoirs or interviews by executives" so they apply to Notability and GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The given sources (aside from Al Jazeera) are entirely based on the comments of employees, which makes them (according to WP:ORG) "examples of dependent coverage". ––FormalDude talk 18:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it looks to me to be simply a part of the feature article process and is not opinion-driven while being more in-depth than traditional news stories. That's the standard. Since we disagree, arguing among ourselves will add nothing to this discussion and I suggest we let the closer sort it out.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom and most of FormalDude's source analysis. There's very little info to be extracted from the articles. The NaturalIngredients article is just a thanks for New Chapter's donation of masks, plus the website promotes businesses, so it's not particularly independent IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the article now? It has been expanded significantly. Thriley (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per FormalDude's source analysis. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaycoengilbert/2017/09/04/how-to-sell-without-selling-out-and-buy-without-burying-the-brand/?sh=279ed8143dcd gives them significant coverage. That article is "Editors' Pick", so a paid editor did review it and chose it as one of their best. https://www.wsj.com/articles/they-sold-their-startup-to-p-g-it-struggled-they-quit-1532005200 Most of the article is hidden behind a paywall, but it seems like this is significant coverage as well. Multiple pages about the company at https://www.newspapers.com/image/801159620 Daily Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, Massachusetts) 01 Dec 2014, Mon Page m8. New Chapter as a search term shows too many results. Adding in the name of the company that bought them gives some results. Searching for the last name of their founders "Schulick" gives more to sort through. Dream Focus 08:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Forbes article is unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. ––FormalDude talk 19:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link says Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Most but not all. This one is "Editors' Pick", as I mentioned, so it has the required editorial oversight.

Says not to use it unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. The person who wrote it states they are the Co-founder of B Lab and the movement of Certified B Corporations.. B Lab and B Corporation (certification) both have articles, showing how notable they are. This person is an expert is clearly a "subject-matter expert". Dream Focus 22:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what "Editors' Pick" means: https://twitter.com/harrymccracken/status/1179768704919375872 MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With Cielquiparle's rewrite, far more reliable sources giving it significant coverage have been found. hopefully that will be enough to convince everyone who understands how the general notability guidelines work. Dream Focus 18:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being notable. Sources are very poor and two above, the Forbes is PR that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 15:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @FormalDude: @Paulmcdonald: I have added a bunch of sources since the article was nominated. Can you take a look at them? Thriley (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at three more:
- "With Top Lines Drooping, Firms Reach For Vitamins" Wall Street Journal. Accessed via TWL. Source is not significant or independent, only includes one mention that is a quote from an employee.
- "As Economy Is Down, Vitamin Sales Are Up" New York Times. Source is not significant or independent, only includes one mention that is a quote from an employee.
- "Slow Living Summit and New Chapter" Brattleboro Reformer. Significant and reliable but not independent as it is entirely based on an interview.
––FormalDude talk 20:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t interviews count towards GNG? Thriley (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Some get confused about interviews. A reliable source wrote a lot about someone/something, then that counts, even if they interviewed the person. The only thing in Wikipedia's rules written about interviews as that they are primary sources of information, so shouldn't always be trusted for information inside an article. But WP:PRIMARY has nothing to do with proving notability, its only about the content of an article. Dream Focus 22:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORG, "Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability." ––FormalDude talk 02:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY clearly states it has to meet the general notability guidelines, which interviews count towards, OR one of the subject specific guidelines. Does not have to meet both. Dream Focus 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While that is technically correct, WP:NOTABILITY also states that both GNG and SNG do not guarantee an article survives deletion, and SNGs specifically serve additional purposes such as the stricter significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.

Precedence for articles about companies is to rely on the stricter WP:ORG guidelines for notability, and I see no reason this topic should be an exception to that. ––FormalDude talk 02:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is an article in the Wall Street Journal a primary source? Yes it contains quotes from the company founders, but it is an independent journalistic piece. Thriley (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm also in agreement with User:FormalDude's source assessment table - articles that rely primarily on interviews with company founders or other interested parties for their content cannot, by their nature, be independent, regardless of what outlet publishes them or how good the journalist's reputation is. Also, in business journalism, features and profiles are much less likely to be independent, significant, reliable coverage than not; business journalism has a proclivity to fawn. Per WP:CORPDEPTH. The article meets my generic description of deleteable content in WP:SERIESA almost to the letter. FalconK (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Or delete, I'm not really experienced enough to decide specifically but I agree that the notability (no signification/meaningful coverage with reliable sources) isn't enough for a separate article. Basic info can be added to the P&G article. --Lalaithan (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the article now? It has been expanded significantly. Thriley (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a few sources that are non-trivial. one, One continued, two. I will see what I can do with the article. Bruxton (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added two in depth sources. I have also cleaned up the article and organized it so that it reads better. I can continue work on the article this week. I feel like the article is much better and I hope others agree. Also in one reference which I provided New Chapter was called, the "World's largest organic vitamin company". I think that may be the best claim for notability so far. Bruxton (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both non-independent interviews, and I think the second one is actually an advertisement. ––FormalDude talk 03:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explain in detail why this source (pg 2) is a "non-independent interview". It is the Brattleboro Reformer, the third largest newspaper in Vermont. It is a staff journalist. It contains original reportage. There are a few quotes but it is not an interview piece, an interview piece is where the bulk of the text is large block quotes of unedited replies. This is normal journalism, it contains small select edited quotes and lots of original reportage and writing by the journalist herself. -- GreenC 04:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source cannot be called independent because 80% of it is text directly attributed to executives of the company. ––FormalDude talk 04:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's not a problem. The question is it a reliable source, and if so we expect the journalist did their homework and wasn't just acting in a COI capacity, for which there is no evidence. Of course they interviewed the company members, that is the point of the story, it's about the company's recent activities which are newsworthy. Who else would they interview. -- GreenC 06:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem when assessing notability. An independent source would be based on information from people who are not affiliated with the company. ––FormalDude talk 06:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It contains original reportage with 'significant' statements of notability ("world's largest organic vitamin company"). And as a reliable source we assume Brattleboro Reformer did their homework to verify what they were told is accurate regardless of who told it to them. For notability purposes it doesn't require opposing POVs or negative opinions to be considered independent. And there's really no one else they would interview for a business news story. What's important for notability purposes is the fact a reliable source covered the company, and what the RS said. -- GreenC 01:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at any of these business Good Articles and you'll see sources interviewing plenty of people who are not affiliated with the topic. They're not hard to find when it is a truly notable topic. ––FormalDude talk 07:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The world's largest organic vitamin company". Notability does not expire. Major player in the vitamin industry. I'm not convinced by the lawyer-like take down of the sources, it passes GNG particularly when you look at the whole picture. The very idea of organic supplements (Vitamin C, B, etc) became popular in the 1990s as tests revealed standard brands were contaminated with heavy metals or lacked in actual vitamins, so there was a wave of new companies to make quality products and New Chapter was a leading co. in that wave. A deletion here based on narrow readings of notability guidelines that misses the bigger picture would be wrong. The sources are difficult to uncover on the Internet 20 years after the company's hey-day in the early 2000s, but we are seeing evidence of notability that should give pause to a rush to delete. -- GreenC 04:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has expanded significantly within the last 8 hours, and incorporates many more sources compared to when it was originally nominated for deletion. It now includes information on corporate history and annual revenues for the company (from $25 million in 2005 to $100 million in 2011/12), clearly demonstrating that this is not a trivial business. In addition, the article has been expanded to include multiple perspectives on the company, the industry, and the acquisition, including controversy about the safety and effectiveness of nutritional and herbal supplements, which continue to be largely unregulated, and the ownership of these enterprises by large pharmaceutical companies. The overall tone remains neutral. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to ~~Merge~~ with P&G article. Looking at the article again, I do think it lacks some hard corporate facts and independent analysis. There are some analysts (and investors) quoted in some of the vertical publications but it mostly has to do with what a lucrative investment this is for the large consumer brands that are acquiring these "organic" and "lifestyle" businesses. Sometimes those vertical business publications have information that is useful IRL but maybe it just doesn't satisfy encyclopedia standards. There are also so many questions that aren't answered by the article right now: What are the major products now? Who are the customers? Are there any other indicators of business performance since the acquisition? I was hoping these types of questions would be answered by the WSJ articles, as they weren't really covered by the other articles I looked at in helping to expand the page, but apparently that information isn't there per those who do have access. (Industry analyst reports, maybe? Dow Jones / Bloomberg access maybe? Grasping at straws now.) It's hard once a company gets acquired as well and some of the corporate information isn't as easily accessible as it might have been previously. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought...I've done more research and I think this is still fixable with further revision. Will update my vote again with additional commentary when I'm done. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been greatly expanded from the three sentence stub that it was when it was nominated. It is a major company in the organic industry with mainstream press going back three decades. Thriley (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Procter & Gamble as per WP:ATD. This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Most of the Keep !voters above are avoiding NCORP's criteria for establishing notability, instead asserting that it passes GNG (and thereby ignoring the WP:SNG section) of GNG. If the company was notable, there should be at least a couple of references that meet NCORP. Relying on a single sentence such as a description saying "the world's largest organic vitamin company" witout any further supporting content in an article about the company celebrating an event is not WP:CORPDEPTH for example. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it actually does bother me that no one has actually accessed either of the two WSJ articles – even if some of the content for one of them incorporates interview content, it quite likely has additional info and analysis independent of the company. So maybe it comes down to pay up for the content (to possibly save it – no guarantees), or just accept that there isn't enough "hard" content to satisfy the CORPDEPTH standard. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why you assumed that nobody accessed the WSJ articles. The first WSJ reference relies entirely on information provided by the original founders, Paul and Barbi Schulick. The article also relies on quotes from P&G. Once you remove the information provided by the related parties, there isn't much left and certainly not enough to meet CORPDEPTH and nothing to satisfy the "Independent Content" criteria of ORGIND. The second WSJ reference is a general article on the market for dietary supplements which has nothing more than a passing mention of the topic company, one of which is a quote from Tom Milliken, a spokesman for P&G. This also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I will change my vote then. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/102872006/new-chapter/ contains original reporting with a significant statement of notability ('worlds largest organic vitamin company') by a journalist, in their own words, not attributed to anyone else, in a reliable source. Did they also interview the company? Yes, but that does not invalidate the significant part of the article. -- GreenC 19:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, as per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet *all* the criteria in order to count towards establishing notability. A snippet of 5 words from an article that relies entirely on information and quotations from the company and assuming we agree that those 5 words are "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company" (and it isn't), we also need to meet CORPDEPTH. Once you ignore the content which is not "Independent Content" (i.e. the rest of the article), then I don't see how 5 words meets CORPDEPTH by any stretch. Second, clearly the journalist is wrong. Even the company themselves in January 2007 describe themselves as a small company owned by family and friends and not the largest and certainly not the world's largest. If you read the rest of the article on page 6, you'll read that the company had 130 employees and one warehouse. This is the problem with thinking that a snippet from a quote by a journalist is accurate and truthful. There isn't one other reference that describes it as such - because it wasn't a true statement. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is independent of the company. It amazes me folks believe interviewing members of the company, when it's a new story about the company, negates independence! It takes the concept too far. Independence is when there is some sort of COI or connection. It is a reliable source, a staff journalist. Short of conspiracy theory and assumption of bad faith, it is an independent source. Furthermore, you say "the company themselves disagree with the journalist", further solidifying the journalist is writing independent of the company! Your actually undercutting your own arguments. In any case their "About" page is marketing, they presents themselves as folksy and non-corporate is part of their branding. -- GreenC 01:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument shows a severe lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy on articles about companies. ––FormalDude talk 07:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add to what FormalDude has said by pointing out that Wikipedia policy is *verifiability* not *truth*. The claim that they're the biggest in the world is simply not verifiable by any other source. Because it is untrue. Also, the duty a journalist/publisher has to to faithfully reproduce the meaning and context of announcements and interviews. So if a spokesperson says they are making 100 jobs redundant and the newspaper writes it as 500 jobs, that's a problem. You also misunderstand the difference between a journalist/publisher being "Independent" and "Independent Content". One is corporate independence - no corporate links, easy concept to understand. But NCORP requires "Independent Content" which is not the same thing as simply repeating what the company says/announces. Claiming the two are one and the same, claiming that because the journalist is "independent" therefore the content is too is nonsense and that is why there is a very specific definition of "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND. In order for a reference to assist with establishing notability must it contain "Independent Content", but that "Independent Content" must also contain in-depth info about the company. None of those references meet the criteria. Those are our guidelines and they're simply to understand. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"World's largest organic vitamin supplement company", even if it was once true, is categorically a marketing catch phrase and as such, does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. I've removed it. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"A marketing catch phrase" written by an independent journalist in an independent source. Taking it to WP:RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"World's_largest_organic_vitamin_company" -- GreenC 19:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"simply repeating what the company says/announces" .. luckily that is not what is happening here. No where does the company itself say they are the largest. It is the conclusion and assertion by an independent journalist. The journalist did their own original research, which is what good independent journalists do. -- GreenC 19:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary reference as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Also, even if we agree it meets WP:ORGIND and is the result of independent fact-checking by the journalist (and we don't), a 5 word sub-sentence/snippet does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and the remainder of the article fails WP:ORGIND as it is practically all quotations. *Each* reference must meet all the criteria as per WP:SIRS. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It meets WP:GNG, "significant" doesn't mean lots of words otherwise we would have a word limit.. "largest company" is few words but is a significant statement. I don't give extraordinary much weight in this case, there's no reason to distrust this reliable source, the claim is not contradicted anywhere, nor is it particularly surprising given the small size of the industry and leading role of New Chapter in creating that industry. Everything we do here is guidelines, they are not strict rules, context matters. -- GreenC 13:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've rewritten the article yet again, so please have a read. After extensive research and consideration (also about whether "New Chapter" would be better left simply as a bulletpoint on List of Procter & Gamble brands), the main justification for keeping this article as a standalone, per WP:ORG, is that there is substantial coverage about New Chapter, Inc. in the form of news articles discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger. There are multiple sources for this, including business publications such as the Wall Street Journal Online, and trade publications such as Nutritional Outlook and WholeFoods Magazine (unaffiliated with Whole Foods Market). I know there was some debate previously about the fact that all of these sources interviewed the founders of the company, but I would note that most of the articles that are now cited in the "Acquisition by P&G" section of the article (including the WSJ and others) actually do interview other sources (including P&G and other industry insiders, exactly what you would expect in an article about "a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger"), and incorporate additional stats from third-party analysts, as well as many falsifiable facts which were almost certainly fact-checked (in the case of WSJ). Even if some of those numbers and facts were originally shared by P&G, publicly traded companies in the United States are strictly regulated when it comes to disclosing material information to the media and could expect sanctions for any misleading or inaccurate statements made publicly about company performance, from the SEC or in the form of class action lawsuits. I've also gone through most of the article and tried to keep it as neutral in tone as possible (no cheerleading), I've added better secondary sources and deleted every single suspect press release, and added additional facts and sections which may be of interest (including the class action lawsuit Waldman v. New Chapter, Inc.), which are definitely WP:NOTADVERTISING. I really appreciate all the rigor with which previous posters have interrogated previous drafts of the article, etc., especially the sourcing, but think I've addressed most of these concerns now. Happy to discuss further improvements to the article on the article Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article and sourcing are substantially improved. Not the article it was when nominated for deletion. WP:Not paper; WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note, again, that *none* of the Keep !voters have bothered to engage in any debate over specific references. Please point out which paragraph in which reference contains in-depth "Independent Content" containing information on the company from people clearly unaffilitated with the company. This is not a !vote counting exercise. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not a vote counting exercise. And your endless repetition does not cure the vacuity of your argument. WP:COAL.

Article improvement is a proper response to an AFD. That it renders the prior votes irrelevant may be true. But see WP:Before, which was incumbent on the nominator when this proceess began. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD where the article is essentially rewritten and materially different - that should have been an outcome of the AfD discussion where consensus was achieved that the article *could* be improved through further editing. AfD is designed by its nature to be a discussion/debate - otherwise it really would be a !vote-counting exercise - and if you're going to participate, you should expect to be challenged and to defend your views using guidelines/policies. COAL is an essay and not aimed at AfD. Still waiting for you to point to the references and the paragraphs within those that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I agree. 7&6=thirteen's claim of "Article and sourcing are substantially improved" doesn't count for much if they won't provide specifics about which text in the sources establishes that WP:NCORP is met. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is NCORP required ie. it overrides basic GNG, and is the same as policy? My understanding NCORP is a guideline, and an optional one. Is it possible to invalidate a persons position because they don't answer your questions, when those questions assume NCORP is the one and only true measure? Or when this same person literally makes up out of the blue the requirement that it is not "proper" to add "materially different" changes to an article in the middle of an AfD. -- GreenC 23:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP is optional. Per WP:N: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right. NCORP is listed in that box. NemesisAT (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barring special circumstances, all companies should be held to the standards of WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 08:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? Or is that your opinion. -- GreenC 13:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're able to provide a special reason why this article shouldn't be held to WP:NCORP, that is likely to be

most Wikipedians' opinion. ––FormalDude talk 07:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already did in my Keep rationale. And clearly in this case, most Wikipedians would agree there are sufficient reliable sources for GNG. And, I find the interpretations of NCORP applied here extreme just-so rationalizations in a rules-lawyer kind of way rather than a common sense bigger picture guideline. -- GreenC 18:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how some editors, when it is clear something doesn't meet NCORP, revert to the GNG instead as if it somehow is a run-around NCORP. Probably without realising that WP:SNG (which is part of WP:N of which GNG is also a section) specifically refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do yo make stuff up so often? It undermines your credibility. SNG is not "part of GNG", anymore than GNG is part of SNG. They are both equally valid approaches depending which you want to use. First HighKing said not to make significant improvements to articles during AfD; now he says it's not appropriate to use GNG during company-related AfDs because apparently SNG literally overrides GNG! You can't make this stuff up (unless you do). -- GreenC 18:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed my comment above. GNG is part of WP:N as is SNG which specifically refers to "the strict significant coverage requirements" of NCORP for companies/organizations. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Rewriting an article when it is at AfD and after multiple !votes have been case is not the correct way to go about things. You're essentially trying to do a run-around on the !votes that have already been expressed. You should instead have requested the page gets moved to Drafts while you worked on a new article or a significantly new version.

That all said, even if you had done so, I've looked at the new version and yet again, none of the references you've added meet NCORP criteria.
You assertion that there was a "prolonged controversy" (your words? If so, that's WP:OR) would better be described as the original founders disagreeing with their new corporate masters due to (in their own words as per the WSJ article) "excessive bureaucracy" and "excessive reporting requirements and bureaucracy". Also in their own words, the deal was "poorly received within the vitamins industry". Not sure why you say it was a "prolonged controversy" - it was hardly an exceptional occurrence and certainly not a globally significant event nor one with a prolonged effect on the industry. As an event it does not meet WP:EVENT.
Similarly, both the Nutritional Outlook reference and the Whole Foods reference are entirely based on interviews with people connected to the topic company with no "Independent Content" whatsoever, failing ORGIND. You say that even if the numbers and facts were originally shared by P&G they're strictly regulated. That demonstrates you're missing the point about "Independent Content" as regurgitating the standard financial disclosures applicable to all companies is not "Independent analysis/investigation/fact checking/etc" and fails ORGIND.
As for the "class action lawsuit", please see WP:ILLCON.

Finally, please see WP:SIRS. Each individual reference must meet NCORP criteria in order to count towards notability, we don't get there by mixing and matching different references together and dealing with the aggregate. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that we all were in favor of improving articles and Wikipedia. So article improvement is always a proper response. But apparently this is controversial? Learn something everyday. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Closer This AfD appears at WP:ARS where at least 5 of the participants at this AfD have commented - Dream Focus, 7&6=thirteen, Thriley, GreenC and Cielquiparle. HighKing⁺⁺ 08:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which was noted here along with many other projects. And that also brought at least some who opine for deletion. As usual, HK is simply seeking to put his thumb on the scale with an Argumentum ad hominem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who are "at least some"? It looks to me like 5 on 1, would mean it was a worthwhile canvassing exercise. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you self identify. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make it 6 now - NemesisAT has joined in. Note that none will engage in a discussion of references/sources, just trying to turn this AfD into a !vote count. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make false accusations. I haven't looked at WP:ARS in a while. NemesisAT (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice deflection, 7&6=thirteen. Again, who are "at least some"? MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the article was improved massively since then by some of the people you mentioned. [7] It went from three short sentences to a full article now. Thriley created the article and after it was nominated for deletion posted a rescue for help at 13:51, 26 May 2022. The first person to see that and came here to comment was MrsSnoozyTurtle at 22:30, 26 May 2022, and she voted delete, as she often does. Note that on the current Rescue list are things I posted and no one but me commented to keep. In fact, two people followed my Rescue notice and said to delete at [8]. The ARS does not "canvass" keeps, it just asks more people to look at something and see if they can make improvements, sometimes they can, and sometimes not. Dream Focus 17:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep evidently more than enough here to warrant an article. Article is not what it was when nominated and previous source analysis carried out. It is a valid offshoot of Procter & Gamble and I don't think merging this content into Procter & Gamble would be beneficial to our readers as the Procter & Gamble is already fairly lengthy. NemesisAT (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Source analysis is still accurate and the additional sources have also been examined. Any chance you we can discuss the two sources you believe meets NCORP criteria for notability (the bare minimum required)? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just comparing this deletion discussion with this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy's Milk Bar. Not sure how this article, especially with the improvements by multiple editors, is in worse shape than Wendy's Milk Bar. Thriley (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s some information about New Chapter from a source that is also used for Wendy’s: [9] Thriley (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you check chapter 5 of that report it becomes obvious that the report has no "Independent Content". It starts off well, saying "Canadean company reports are based on a core set of research techniques which ensure the best possible level of quality and accuracy of data". That's encouraging - research techniques! Cool! Except, the report contains no "Indepedent Content" in the form of insights or analysis. Unsurprising, because the key sources used are: Company Websites, Company Annual Reports, SEC Filings, Press Releases and Proprietary Databases. It's vacuous. Reading the report, there is zero "Independent Content", just a regurgitation of company information. I cannot see anything that could possible meet "Independent Content" - can anyone point some out? No doubt some folk might say this report meets ORGIND's definition of "Independent Content" but I'd like you to point to actual text in the report. I further say that the report's disclaimer lays bare the fact that it is a regurgitation by stating "the facts of this report are believed to be correct at the time of publication but cannot be guaranteed". That isn't something you'll find in analyst reports which actually contain their own analysis. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching “ "New Chapter" Vermont vitamin” in Google scholar returns quite a few results. Has anyone looked through them? Thriley (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone find the full text of this 2001 Whole Foods Magazine article: [10]? Thriley (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the other articles I can see in Whole Foods Magazine mentioning the topic company, I don't think you're going to find a reference that meets NCORP criteria. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The magazine does not do any real investigative fact-finding in-depth articles on companies, it's really a bunch of ads and articles which, at the end of the day and regardless of any underlying "science", are designed to sell supplements and vitamins and are promotional. That isn't a criticism, it is what it is. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several Keep !voters latched onto the claim of "world's largest" as a sign of notability, but that claim has not stood up to scrutiny and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard did not support the request that it was a reliable quote/source from GreenC. Also, while I appreciate the efforts of Thriley to attempt to locate references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I think we're at the point where we can comfortably say we've exhausted our considerable resources and we've not been able to agree on any sources meeting NCORP criteria. At no point did we reach a stage where Keep !voters were pointing to specific paragraphs within specific references and a debate ensued. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article about a corporate subsidiary should not exist as a standalone, unless it satisfies the WP:NCORP criteria. The main criterion which the coverage appears to satisfy is “a news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger”.

By definition, a controversy is based on a “prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.” In the case of New Chapter, this controversy started in March 2012 when the acquisition was first announced and continued through July 2018, when the founders finally left the company.

Any description of the controversy would tend to rely on interviews, quotations, and opinions of multiple parties in the dispute. Currently, the section on the P&G Acquisition includes references to opinions expressed by:

Customers
P&G employees
Product retailers and buyers
New Chapter employees
Suppliers
P&G official spokespeople
Co-founders of New Chapter

Some of the sources cited are trade publications, and have been used with care. However, they are not sufficient to establish notability under WP:NCORP rules.

The main article then that does satisfy notability is The Wall Street Journal article from 2018, which includes:

Quotes from New Chapter founder
Quotes from P&G spokesperson
Quote from a former retail buyer who now works for a competitor

The article also includes:

Statistic from market data firm SPINS LLC
Claim about unprofitable business unit which we have to presume was fact-checked by the WSJ before publishing

Under WP:NCORP rules, multiple sources are preferable in establishing notability. Thus a second independent source which helps to make the case for notability, also in covering the ongoing saga about the acquisition, is The Brattleboro Reformer, the third-largest daily newspaper in Vermont, which has followed the company over the course of its history as a privately held company through its acquisition by P&G and the departure of its founders.

If these sources are found not to be sufficient to establish notability under WP:NCORP rules, please go ahead and delete the article. (It’s the reality of being acquired by a major conglomerate – there is no room on their main article page for sub-sections covering every single acquisition.) However, before you do that, please do make sure you actually read the article, as I believe it’s also been mischaracterized during this discussion. And as always, if you have constructive suggestions about how to further improve the article (including possible sources to add), please post them to the article Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Let me try to explain why a lot of what you're saying is Original Research and/or doesn't meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I'll break it down into two main sections.

You say a news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger meets NCORP and you say that this particular merger was a "prolonged controversy". First, it wasn't a merger. P&G *acquired* the company. Second, NCORP refers to a news article discussing a prolonged controversy... - you will need to provide a reference which first of all refers to it as a controversy in some form (doesn't need to use the word "controversial" so long as the meaning is clear - that is was controversial and prolonged). I say it was not controversial at all - founders disagree with new owners and leave all the time. This is not controversial. An example of a controversial merger would be where anti-competition authorities get involved or where it results in a lawsuit of some sort.
Without a reference saying it was controversial (as opposed to the founders being unhappy with new corporate masters) you are in danger of Original Research. As I previously mentioned above (and I also previous requested a reference) in the founders own words as per the WSJ article, they describe their reasons for leaving as "excessive bureaucracy" and "excessive reporting requirements and bureaucracy". Also in their own words, the deal was "poorly received within the vitamins industry". Nothing here suggests a controversy.
You say above that multiple sources are preferable in establishing notability but I fear you have misinterpreted this to mean that the content within multiple sources may be combined to meet the notability criteria. As per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet all of NCORP's requirements to count towards establishing notability. And we need multiple of these types of references (a minimum of two).
You say that any description of the controversy would tend to rely on interviews, quotations, and opinions of multiple parties in the dispute. You go on to say that the WSJ article from 2018 meets the criteria for notability because it contains quotes from various people who are all affiliated with the company in some way. Quotes and interviews from persons affiliated with the company fail the definition of "Independent Content". In the absence of the journalist or some other unaffiliated source providing an analysis or opinion on what was said, I don't see how those quotes are relevant for the purposes of notability.

If you can point to a specific paragraph in a specific reference that meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - the two sections of NCORP where most references fall down, I'm happy to look again. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to response

The terms "mergers" and "acquisitions" are often used interchangeably, even if their strict legal definition is quite different. WP:NCORP does not specify a particular definition.
I actually didn't even use the word "controversy" within the article (except as a subject header for a different section); I have only used it within the context of this discussion.
Agree that this is not "controversial" in the sense of anti-competition authorities involved. But again, WP:NCORP does not specify this as the definition and leaves it open. And if it were in fact intended to cover regulatory or legal disputes only, it could actually be worded that way. (One could even argue that a regulatory investigation by the SEC is distinct from a mere "controversy".)
Absolutely yes, the irony of a broader definition of "controversy" is that it suggests that the highly subjective opinions of multiple parties matter, so an overly strict and literal interpretation of the "Independent Content" rule would make no sense in this particular case.
I won't quote the whole WSJ article here but was indeed surprised when I finally found it on ProQuest because it was a bit different from how you had characterized it originally. Here is a passage of how the "controversy" is explained by WSJ as potentially damaging to the business:

The clash embodies the tension big consumer companies face as they scoop up the trendy brands increasingly wooing shoppers. Many of these brands have loyal and growing followings but fail to make money or lack the resources to grow beyond niche status as independent businesses.

New Chapter is tiny, given the scope of P&G, which sells more than $65 billion a year in household goods, from Crest toothpaste to Pampers diapers. But the business's decline and P&G's clash with the Schulicks come as the market giant tries to show investors and consumers it can compete with small brands that are stealing share from its billion-dollar names.

After a lengthy period of little M&A activity, P&G in the past year has acquired a trio of startups: Native natural deodorant and two skin-care brands, Snowberry and FAB. In April, P&G also agreed to pay Germany's Merck KGaA $4.2 billion for its consumer-health business.

(Sharon Terlip, WSJ Online (19 July 2018)) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Again, before arguing over the meaning of the terms used in NCORP, the starting point in all of this is a reference that describes the acquisition as *controversial* and especially one that refers to a *prolonged controversy*. You say that WSJ does this. I disagree and the extract does not mention it as controversial, merely as a "clash" and the context of the article talks about a clash of small entrepreneurs vs big corporate. A "clash" - especially as it *merely* involved the founders leaving their company and who, in their own words, described the acquisition as "poorly received". Sorry, but that isn't close to what NCORP means by a "prolonged controversy". HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The WSJ article as a whole does describe a prolonged controversy from 2012 to 2018 within the company, but also within the marketplace. It is not only about the clash of small entrepreneurs vs. corporate, but also discusses the perspectives of buyers and retailers, also quoting a former buyer who is now a competitor. It describes the controversy as also having an impact on the performance and trust of the business. Yes, it relies on interviews and opinions solicited from three parties to tell the story. Either that is acceptable in this case or it's not. I understand your interpretation is that it's not. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for any reference that describes it as a controversy and I've yet to see one. Calling it one is WP:OR. The WSJ article was written in 2018 - because that's when the founders left, not because there was a "prolonged controversy". Don't forget, they sold the company in 2012. So after 6 years working for P&G, the founders left (not unusual) and suddenly its a controversy? At the time of the acquisition, Paul Schulick described the acquisition as "a dream come true". Customers expressed concern - again, not controversial. In 2013, a year after the sale, Paul Schulick described the acquisition as "so far so good". In 2016, the Schulicks gave a keynote speech at the "2016 Slow Living: Opening Plenary - The New Chapter Founders’ Story" and answered questions about the P&G buyout (starting at 1:32:20) and no mention of controversy. In fact, they assured the audience that their involvement was similar to what they've always done and went on to say that P&G remained committed to the spirit of the company and their mission. No controversy. In 2017, a year before the Schulicks left, an interview with Sara Newmark, Director of Sustainability of New Chapter since 2002 explained the acquisition as being "typical of a business" of their size at the time and went on to express excitement for the future. So I'm just not going to agree that this qualifies as a prolonged controversy. I cannot even agree it was even a small controversy based on some scepticism by customers (as you would expect) when the company was acquired. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You win the award! Most postings at this AFD. That makes a Baker's dozen postings for you. You can break that record, no doubt. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, please drop the snarkiness, it is not helpful. Do you have any policy-based reasoning in response to HighKing's detailed explanation? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back at you, Queen of Snark. Your presence was anticipated. Your history proceeds you. Regards, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#7&6=thirteen’s_behavior_hasn’t_improved Your conduct was a lengthy discussion a mere 6 months ago. Can you just cut it out please? If you aren't here to provide policy/guideline based reasoning, you've no reason to be here at all. Your conduct is disruptive. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the AFD notice itself plainly states, In haec verba "Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed ". I didn't want to burden the closer. You don't like my policy based arguments. And I disagree with you. You have made 14 repetitive edits here. And I leave it to the reader to determine their worth. Others might characterize your conduct as WP:Bullying or WP:Disruptive. But your feelings about me, and mine about you, have no relevance to whether WP:GNG and WP:Before apply. So put a cork in the WP:Personal attacks, as they are irrelevant. I would also note that there is a marked discrepancy between H.K.'s position here and his position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungo Connectivity. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly High King’s comment on that afd makes me skeptical of his participation in this debate. Thriley (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley, it seems to me that they are unrelated questions. Have you purchased and read the two reports that HK is referring to for Jungo? MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, a/k/a WP:Bludgeon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is two reports published by two companies that may or may not be reliable vs. 30 years of independent journalistic coverage for New Chapter. Thriley (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is long established that analyst reports which profile a company and their product(s) meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? I wouldn't consider analyst reports to be of any reliable source coverage whatsoever. It is not even trade publication coverage at that point. Silver seren^C 21:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, please stop the cheap shots of unfounded accusations. Are you going to answer the questions you were previously asked about deletions policy and sources? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already have answered. We know that you'll insist on the last word. It's your style. Regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, where have you answered those questions please?

That's untrue, and your "style" is to make unfounded accusations then evade any questioning about them. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unlike you and User:HighKing, I made no accusations. Every factual statement was true. 09:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep: I would have voted redirect/delete if I was looking at the article as it was when nominated but there is now a collection of useful references. Gusfriend (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously a notable enterprise, surpassing the threshold for company notability (which seems, for better or worse, to remain a higher threshold than for other types of articles). The vehemence of some of the delete comments surprises me, and the suggestion that articles proposed for deletion should not be improved is absurd. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much appreciate if you could point to references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. My comment about articles being rewritten mid-AfD while discussing whether there were any sources that meet NCORP (and the rewrite didn't add anything that meets NCORP) was expressed clumsily and is wrong. Clearly there's no issue with improving articles mid-AfD especially if the modifications addresses the issues being discussed at the AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S C G M Inter College Madhupur Sonebhadra

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article without indication of notability. Fail WP:GNG. The Banner talk 09:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, not notable institution. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources present to indicate the article subject meets general notability guidelines. MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not notable. no source provided.NMasiha (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew May (historian)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Happy to be proved wrong here, but I'm not managing to see how this person is notable by our standards. According to Scopus, he has an h-index of 4; GScholar search results suggest that it is closer to 6 or 7. He seems to get a number of mentions on JSTOR, but no in-depth coverage that I can see. Note: I've searched for him as "Andrew Brown-May", as there are several other academics called "Andrew May". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC as far as I can see. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, new here. Just realized I should have replied to this comment rather than below. You might not have gotten a notification. Please see my points below starting with "(I'm new here)". Notamitchell (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not as of yet meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, new here. Just realized I should have replied to this comment rather than below. You might not have gotten a notification. Please see my points below starting with "(I'm new here)". Notamitchell (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm new here)

He is also sometimes "Andy" and has changed his name. So I don't think citations are going to be a reliable metric here. (Side note: I don't think many historians of Australia have a high index. There simply aren't many of them in a small country to be citing each other. Instead, the public is the main consumer of academic books. For that matter, how could historians of any small country meet this bar? I digress.)

My reading of the criteria WP:NACADEMIC ("Academics meeting any one of the following conditions...".) is that the subject only needs to meet one of the criteria, not all. Therefore the h-index point is moot if any one of these is true:

"1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

Would the history podcast tick this box? It was number one in a few categories consistently when new episodes are released. I can chase citations for this if it is considered a sufficient condition.

"3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)."

Is the fellowship of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia not sufficient here? It seems to be the notability basis of other historians of Australia.

"6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society."

Head of History at Australia's #1 or #2 university is not sufficient? This seems to have been deleted from the article.

"7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."

Is it sufficient to prove the impact the books? (Again, h-index not relevant for history books that the public reads) Notamitchell (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notamitchell. The two fellowships certainly count. The thing that would be most helpful is book reviews from newspapers, magazines and academic journals, which would contribute to meeting WP:AUTHOR; I've quickly searched JSTOR but newspaper reviews would be very useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to publish as Andrew May, Andrew J. May and Andrew Brown-May, unless the article is conflating two scholars. He is an elected fellow of two separate bodies, which would probably meet WP:PROF. There are several book reviews just on JSTOR, probably enough to meet WP:AUTHOR: Missionaries, Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Exchange [11],[12],[13]; The Encyclopedia of Melbourne [14]; Welsh Missionaries and British Imperialism [15]. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that the article was hacked down before nominating, which does not help one to understand the potential areas of notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that, Espresso Addict. In my opinion the removal of sources that don't mention the topic at all, the removal of unreferenced personal detail per WP:BLP, the removal of unsourced content, the removal of some extremely minor awards and the addition of one (albeit absolutely non-independent) source all help to determine whether or not there's any real substance in the page and any real grounds for having it. But as I said above, happy to be proved wrong here.

A question for Notamitchell: do you have some connection to this person? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mindful of putting personal information on the internet (e.g. something like "we had the same supervisor but at different times in different departments at the same large institution where I no longer work because of a scandal involving a spatula and ..."). The Wikipedia Article Wizard and all the orientation went into this and related questions. I'm confident that I'm within all those guidelines/policy/etc, which I think is the spirit of your question.

On sources, I'm confident I can find publicly available links for the issues you raise. I've got a lot of information that's behind paywalls/logins and the alternative public ones I found aren't good enough. That's just time and effort on my part. I'd rather not go to this effort if the article is still going to be rejected. Or to put it another way, if you can expand "happy to be proved wrong here" to "if can prove you are right here, here or even here, I'm wrong"... then I can get to work on those points. For example, "if you can prove the two fellowships, I am wrong".

Getting a bit sidetracked from the topic of notability, so feel free to not engage with this. But a newcomer's perspective might be helpful. I found the deletions ("hack down") in conflict with my experience of wikipedia to date. Whenever there are problems on a wikipedia article I have always seen [citation needed] or [who?] and so on added to the end of a sentence. Or one of those "This section sucks because" boxes. Apologies for not knowing the names of these. The "hack down" deletions almost made me give up on wikipedia editing. I don't think adding [citation needed] and equivalents would have had the same effect on me, as that is quite literally constructive feedback rather than destructive feedback. Again, feel free to ignore this as it is off topic of notability criteria. Notamitchell (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Notamitchell: Paywalled or book sources are fine; many editors here are academics &/or librarians and can access them to check. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: No objection to removing unsourced personal information that doesn't contribute to notability; however, when bringing an article to AfD, I think it's best to leave everything else in situ, even if the sources aren't 100% reliable, so that AfD participants don't have to poke around in the history to see what was originally written. Often when a semi-reliable source states something, a reliable source can be found to state the same thing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The removal of unsourced family connections was appropriate. The removal of major career milestones was not. Regardless, he appears to pass WP:PROF#C3 (FASSA) and WP:AUTHOR (multiple reviews for Welsh Missionaries and The Encyclopedia of Melbourne). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable Melburnian academic JarrahTree 05:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Deus et lex (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Cabrils (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 U-16 International Dream Cup squads

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of non-notable child footballers which does not meet WP:LISTN. No navigational purpose since none of the footballers in the list are notable. No independent coverage available; sourced entirely from country's own FAs, which is a primary source. Would go for outright deletion as opposed to merging per consensus at similar AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's team squads and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 South American Under-17 Women's Football Championship squads. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list. Giant Snowman 10:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wiki is not the place to put squad lists of not notable people.Fulmard (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although i really do like to see squad lists of any ranks being it senior or junior. And as above said, lacks notability, reliable (not primary) sources, and this tournament is an invitational friendly tournament for Under-16s, so that technically makes it even less relevant to be introduced as an article. Skydream1721 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was convert to a disambiguation page. I'll leave the action to somebody who understands the subject better. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borapansury

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGEO. I'm not exactly sure what a "sub-town" is, but based off of the description it appears to be the union of two villages within the CADC. I can't find multiple independent RS that mention this more than trivially, nor can I find evidence that this is a legally recognized thing, though two villages (Borapansury I and Borapansury II) listed in Chakma Autonomous District Council begin with the name of this article. As such, I believe the article should be redirected to Chakma Autonomous District Council, as the current article is non-notable but may have a valid redirect location. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a disambiguation page: To disambiguate between Borapansury - I and Borapansury - II. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the creation of a DAB page require that the second village have an article? The point in redirecting it to the article on the council is that the page contains both villages in its list, but only one village has an independent article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will let users who know more about the subject figure out what needs to redirect or disambiguate to what, but we certainly don’t need a deletion discussion. These are real places in Mizoram, correct? -- Y not? 01:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Borapansury-I and Borapansury-II are real places which can be seen by searching for "Borapansury" in the Indian census site. There is no place there called just Borapansury though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so… you want a disambiguation page, correct? You don’t need a deletion discussion to do that. -- Y not? 13:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a disambiguation page It would be useful for readers to know about the second village when searching for the term, even if there isn't currently an article for it. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone would like the content restored to user space in order to write an article on George Weinstein, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardscrabble Road

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BK. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. This article is supported by three sources:

This bio, from the books publisher.
This review in Paste (magazine). It's hard to tell if this is a user-submitted magazine, but this was the reviewers only review.
This review in "Southern Literary Review", which appears to be a user-submitted literary blog. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and United States of America. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677 hello there, this article was created as a response to another article which I intended to create for the Author George Weinstein, I created and submitted a page for him using citations that were available, but it was rejected all three times I submitted it. During a discussion with the final Editor who rejected it, it was suggested that I instead create an article for Hardscrabble Road as the sources which were book "reviews" and therefore valid sources, as opposed to author "interviews" which apparently are not valid, all pertained to one of the authors five books, which was Hardscrabble Road. As such I took the Editor's (Theroadislong) advice and created an article for the book instead of the author. As far as the sources go, there were a few other sources, but this Editor told me to include the ones that were for "book reviews".

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 also, I can see why people definitely get annoyed and quit editing for Wikipedia..... When the first draft of the George Weinstein article got rejected, i made the changes the first Editor suggested and then when it got rejected by the second editor I made the changes they suggested and it got rejected by a third editor, who as mentioned suggested that I create a page for Hardscrabble Road instead, which is presently being nominated for deletion by you. And the article from Paste Magazine, was actually suggested by the 2nd editor to reject the initial George Weinstein page I intended to create.... Yes there are rules and guidelines and so on.... But there is no rhyme, reason or method to this.... It's gets rejected by one Editor and they tell you what to fix it will be rejected by the next Editor for making the changes the first Editor told you to make. Just a bit frustrating and confusing and therefore annoying is all. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Raleigh80Z90Faema69 Hint. WP:AFC is evil. Don't use it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would have been better if you had created a draft of this first, then it could have been improved before submitting. Theroadislong (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong I thought I did, I realized the initial draft still had a few mistakes including the reflist that I told you about.... I thought when I hit publish that it was going to take me back to a "draft" preview page.... But instead it created a Wikipedia page Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to locate enough sources to support notability. If I had, I would added them to the article. Not sure how sending this to draft will help; the two non-primary sources in the article are from 2013 and 2014, so I doubt new ones are going to pop up. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 what I wondered about whether or not a book is noteworthy enough to be included is.... are there sales number requirements? Do sales count, or proven reviews on Amazon. While creating the page for this author I noticed most of his other books only had about 250-300 reviews, which is pretty good, if 300 people have reviewed a book then it stands to reason over 1,000 people probably bought it, but that's not exactly bestseller territory or worthy of a Wikipedia page.... But with this Hardscrabble Road book the reviews were considerably higher. Both the E-Book and the Hardcover Paperback had over 1,000 reviews EACH.... And they're all in the 4.5 out of 5 range for ratings. This means over 2,000 reviews with an average rating of 4.5. that's pretty impressive, and in addition to this it means the book probably sold close to 10,000 copies between all formats. That seems to be worthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, but is there actually a specific numbers of sales Wikipedia wants to see to reach a certain level of notability? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 I just went to double check these numbers as it was a few weeks ago when I initially looked it up, and there were also an additional 1,400 reviews rated at 4.5 from Goodreads.... This book likely sold well over 10,000 copies considering the majority of people who buy books don't review them. This seems to be pretty impressive sales numbers with fairly high ratings. This seems like it should matter, with movie pages most every movie has a section on its "reception" and they post a few movie reviews as well as its rating from Rotten Tomatoes... Amazon and Goodreads are the book equivalent of Rotten Tomatoes aren't they? More or less? This seems to be relevant for movies, but not so much for books? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Raleigh80Z90Faema69 That is a fair point. I would agree we should treat book review aggregator scores just like we do for movies or games. Feel free to raise this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books discussion and do ping me if you do. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus if I was there contributing I certainly would, but I'm not a pro Wikipedia editor like most of the people here seem to be. Normally my maximum commitment to Wikipedia is writing Tour De France and cycling history articles as a lot of those articles, especially back in the 70s and 80s were written by people who have English as a second language and are brief snippets which need expansion. This Hardscrabble Road page I created is an exception, it's the second time I've ever created a page. The first time was for the author John Gilstrap and I basically wrote one paragraph with no infobox and it was approved and in the main space within an hour and a team of Editors swooped in and created the page into what it is within about twenty minutes. That's how I learned how to make an infobox, I copied and pasted their edits and studied them. In any case, I appreciate the offer and wish I had more time to dedicate to this but the Tour de France takes up several hours a week as it is!! Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Raleigh80Z90Faema69 No worries. The hobby can drag you in, you start small and, whoosh, ten years pass and you have hundreds of articles written... enjoy the ride. PS. If you want to see this saved for later, you can ask for userspace WP:DRAFTIFICATION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry but this just doesn't come any where near close to passing WP:NBOOK. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All we have here are two book reviews, neither of which looks very impactful. The Paste Magazine review is signed, but I can't find confirmation that the magazine has any form of peer review of editorial controls (although it probably does). The Southern Literary Review looks less professional, but maybe it's just page design, they do have a serious submission info: [16]. Anyway, the reviews do appear reliable, and together they meet the minimum GNG requires, which is covered in multiple reliable sources, but well, it's the very bare minimum. Given how niche those two publications appear, I am on the fence here. Is a book which best reception are two niche reviews really encyclopedic (notable)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus that's why I brought up the apparent sales numbers and several thousand highly rated reviews.... I wondered about the NY Times bestseller list, if a book reaches this list would that pretty much immediately meet the notability requirement? This book did not reach this list, but it just came to mind because I think you need to sell about 2,000 books a week to get close to top 10 and 5,000 books in a week to reach near the top during the months of January-February then in August-September you need to sell closer to 10,000-15,000. I'm not certain if this matters for Wikipedia, but when i think notability I think sales and while it's over the course of several years Hardscrabble Road does appear to have sold several thousand.

Also, would articles about this author and not necessarily about the book be of any use, I did notice at least a few other articles on him, where Hardscrabble Road is certainly mentioned, but they seemed to be from small town newspapers or local magazines promoting an upcoming conference or literary retreat. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sales number can matter, but I am not sure where o draw the line. NYTB list probably would be helpful, although I'd need to research it methodology, but if you say it's not on it, then the numbers aren't that good, are they? As for user reviews, given that they can be faked (google for paid fake books reviews, or see https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/book-reviewers-for-hire-meet-a-demand-for-online-raves.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/features/amazons-never-ending-fake-reviews-problem-explained/ , https://www.murderati.com/book-community-scandal-paid-and-fake-reviews/ , etc.) I wouldn't count them for anything. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus yes I'm certain that happens with fake book reviews.... Any book worth reading of naturally doesn't need them, but the number of total reviews seem a bit high being as there seems to be three different reviewing sites that have over 1,000 reviews each.... Unless goodreads is somehow combined with Amazon, which I don't think it would be, but I'm certainly no expert on the matter...

On the sales yes that's correct, it did not have the numbers necessary to make the NYTB list, as those sales numbers have to be achieved in one week. Plus if it did make the list, well that's the sort of award that is listed whenever you look up a book. It does appear to have sold over 10,000 copies total, but obviously this is across about 8 years or so. Even still it's a considerable number of sales that most books don't reach, especially in this modern self-publishing world where 999 out of 1,000 won't sell 100 copies nevermind 10,000. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, re SLR review, of concern is this from their submissions page - "It’s fine to mention a weakness or two, if these stood out. However, if the book’s overall presentation is weak, we would prefer not to review the book in SLR.", so they only accept "good" reviews?, also with library holdings (yes i am kinda obsessed with this for books:)) of less then 10, and with the lack of reviews suggest it dont look good. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple are you referring to reviews that would come from like USA Today, Washington Post or NY Times type reviews? If so I did not see any from sources like that, just Paste Magazine, which is apparently credible, and I've seen several modern authors proudly displaying reviews from Paste on Twitter these days, and then the Southern Literary Review and a few local magazines in the region the book comes from in Tennessee and Georgia.

It also seems like perhaps if this page was created back in 2013 or 2014 shortly after it was released it might have made more sense being as that's likely when the majority of the sales and the reviews come from. Although I suppose this doesn't actually matter as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I guess another thing I would wonder is, do people, places, events, works of art, books etc... that have regional significance qualify for Wikipedia pages, or do they have to have national or international significance? I suppose not, because sports players, who played Triple A baseball for the Toledo Mudhens and never even made the major leagues often times have Wikipedia pages, as do small town politicians (mayor/state congressmen) whom nobody outside their state or district knows anything about. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is worrisome, as it does suggest SLP is biased. Do they get paid for publishing good reviews only? I can't imagine any other reasons for focusing on "good" reviews only. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus this is a good question is SLP the southern literary magazine... If they get a book and it's hacked together, doesn't make sense, flow right, read well or just flat out isn't a good book would they review it accordingly, should I investigate? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How could we investigate it? I mean, we could ask for clarification by email, but can we even trust what they say? If they are a forum to shill paid adverts and if they think we are trying to expose them, they'd deny everything - just as if they'd do if they're a genuine review outlet with just badly written submission guide, sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I suppose that's a good point. Aside from researching individual reviews from various reviewed books from the past to check and see. I guess with this book here I would question it more if it didn't have several thousand sales and reviews.... but then again if it only had 200 reviews it never would have been considered for a Wikipedia page in the first place.... And yes I see what you mean regarding the evolution of editing.... for sure, when I initially created my account I did so just intending to correct the typos and questionable grammar in a few of the articles I was reading from the 70's and 80's Tour de France. A few years later and I'm writing entire 5,000 word articles and adding citations, linking pages, editing and verifying stats and records for accuracy... in another five years who the hell knows lol! Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's mildly ironic at best, and sort of ridiculous at worst, that delete !voters in discussions about books and authors frequently want us to discount reviews in publications like Kirkus and Publishers Weekly on the basis that they purportedly review anything and everything, but here we have the entirely contradictory argument that exercising selectivity and only reviewing quality books is just as much of a disqualifier! I've no idea if either of you (Coolabahapple and Piotrus) have made those sorts of arguments, so this isn't to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, but it's worth emphasising that only reviewing books that meet certain standards, and asking contributors to not completely slate those books, is entirely normal and par the course in a literary magazine. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the two sources are a bit less than we'd ideally want, but nonetheless adequate for WP:NB. Paste is a well-known and well-established publication; I don't have any qualms about its viability as a source. I hadn't previously heard of the Southern Literary Review, and its website is indeed a bit shonky, but the "about" page and submission guidelines are sufficient to convince me that it has some editorial controls, and the reviewer's prior published work, as indicated in her profile, could tip the review into WP:EXPERTSPS territory if the SLR wasn't itself a reliable source. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD appears to hinge on an unfounded assertion that a source is invalid. Artw (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question for anyone who happens to read this.... How long does this process last for taking votes for or against deletion? And also, if the article is kept I noticed it says "orphan article" with no other articles linked to it. I added 2 links, one under the Southern Gothic page and another on the author's hometown.... how many articles should it be linked to before removing the Orphan article tag? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Raleigh80Z90Faema69: AfD discussions last a week by default, but can be extended ("relisted") for a further seven days if consensus isn't clear, as has now happened here. It won't be closed before 10 June, but could be relisted again then. Your edits to Southern Gothic and Marietta, Georgia were reverted by Magnolia677, so the article is once again an orphan and the tag should stay for the time being. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Southern Literary Review is an author submitted reviews site, adding zero notability to this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Paste magazine is a reliable source, but it's not really enough to establish notability. The other sources are not reliable unfortunately. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because nothing in there establishes notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to George Weinstein and refactor into a section on an article on the author, for whom some additional coverage exists to support a biographical article. BD2412 T 22:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Partisan Cross

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citation. The page creator is autopatrolled. Without citation, they created such articles. What are the norms of the autopatrolled if these kinds of articles are published without any ref? _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, and Poland. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The key question is not whether there are sources in the article, but whether sources exist. Based on the pl.wiki article, there are plenty of sources available (even if I can't evaluate them in detail because I don't speak/read polish). -Ljleppan (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be in Poland Wiki. It's duplicate entry here. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since sources exist and show notability. Hundreds of thousands of subjects have articles in multiple different Wikipedias, which does not make them duplicates. --bonadea contributions talk 09:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why Ref is empty? _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is most decidedly not how WP works. We hope that every article is on every language Wikipedia. In any case, if you had done a cursory WP:BEFORE you would have seen that it is described on page 171 of John Clarke's Gallantry Medals & Decorations of the World published by Pen & Sword, and page 35 of Henry Taprell Dorling's Ribbons and Medals: The World's Military and Civil Awards published by Doubleday. It is without a doubt described in other books on international honours and awards. It is also mentioned in numerous biographical "who's who"-type books as having been awarded to notable people. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 where are/is any source of your claim? _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books is your friend. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 that can't be notability. An article without any Ref is deemed fit for DELETE. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"An article without any ref is deemed fit for delete?" That is a fundamental misunderstanding of our guidelines which specifically state a check must be done before it is nominated to see if references exist. This is because an absence of sources within an article means it can be tagged with an appropriate template, or better yet, the editor can add them in themselves. We only delete articles if there are no sources found after thorough discussion. Editor have raised these sources above, and simply replying with "that cant be notability" is not a particularly constructive argument. Clearly the source exists and if you search within the book, @Peacemaker67 is entirely correct. Therefore notability is established and I think a withdrawal of nomination is in order. - MaxnaCarter (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Such-change47, you are correct. I'll withdraw. Someone has to work to add citations. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bordering on, but not quite, speedy keep given the erroneous nomination. Sources have been located by other editors, and a proper WP:BEFORE check does not appear to have been carried out. Sources demonstrate subject notability and verifiability - MaxnaCarter (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About the creator having autopatrolled rights and the lack of references: the aricle was created in 2006 – the autopatrolled user right didn't exist until 2009, and the editor who created the article got autopatrolled rights in 2011. It's true that articles should not be unreferenced, but that's not a reason to delete an article when it has been shown that sources exist. The solution is to add references to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea yes, the solution is to add references. I have no intention to get any article deleted, if suitable. I just did as it says "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" for an Unref article.

I know, this nomination will not delete, but will help the article. With good faith, Regards _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 00:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. First, you do realize this article was created in 2006, when it was a norm to create ORish unreferenced essays? Anyway, it has an entry in this reference work about Polish decorations, although admittedly the snippet view only shows me one paragraph and I can't estimate the extent of SIGCOV. Another work that seems to have at least a few sentences with a description of physical attributes is this. And this. And this. Overall, I think this award has received sufficient attention from reliable sources to meet GNG. Nominator would be advised to ask at WT:POLAND about it first before listing it here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I may easily create references to Polish law acts constituting the cross, which are official source, but in several days. By the way, I consider this nomination as an abuse, since it is obvious, that given decoration exists - I haven't made up the photograph in a photoshop. Pibwl ←« 16:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japan national under-17 football team results (2020–present)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant, independent coverage. Strong consensus from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Arab Emirates national under-17 football team results, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India national under-17 football team results, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand national under-17 football team results and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines national under-17 football team results that this isn't a notable enough topic for Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per consensus at other AFDs. Giant Snowman 10:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTSTATS. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnM2002 (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wiki is not a stat db.Fulmard (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Firefly. (A7: Article about a singer, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Abo$$ (Artist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hamza Abo$$ (Artist)

This biography of a living person does not establish musical notability or general notability. Footnotes are required in a biography of a living person. This article has no footnotes, only 11 endnotes. After being Proposed for Deletion, the deletion proposal was removed by the author, which is permitted. The endnotes appear to be all press releases, many of them labeled as press releases, others recognizable by the exuberant tone that is not that of professional critics.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Secondary
1	bignewsnetwork.com	A newswire press release	No	Yes	No
2	benzinga.com/pressreleases	Reads like a paid puff piece	No	Yes	No
3	usnewswire.org	A Press Release	No	Yes	No
4	southeast.newschannelnebraska.com	Reads like another press release	No	Yes	No
5	news.yahoo.com	Another gushing press release	No	Yes	No
6	news.yahoo.com	Yet another gushing press release	No	Yes	No
7	news.yahoo.com	Still another gushing press release	No	Yes	No
8	apnews.com	A press release, labeled as such	No	Yes	No
9	news.yahoo.com	Reads like a press release	No	Yes	No
10	usnewswire.org	Another press release, labeled as such	No	Yes	No
11	apnews.com	Another press release, labeled as such	No	Yes	No

There isn't any significant secondary coverage, either in-line, whether it is supposed to be, or at the bottom. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Washington. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This biography of a living person does establish musical notability or general notability. Two out of the ten endnotes are are published via the Associated Press. This is considered reliable regardless of if it was apart of a mass syndication or not. The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drackosiru (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Sockpuppet comment struck. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rule on whether Associated Press bestows notability on the subject refers to original articles written by their journalists, and not to pre-written press releases that they merely distribute, which is the case for this rapper. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good luck to dude as he gets started, but Wikipedia is not a promotional service. The nominator is correct on how all of the rapper's media coverage is reprinted press releases from himself or his management. Wikipedia requires professional and independent journalistic coverage, and such authors would not call him a genius all the time. He seems to have a knack for finding media companies that will reprint his own promotional statements, but he does not get an article here until the professionals notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, Mr. Aboss isn't notable at this point, based on the source analysis. Best of luck to him. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedily, per the above and this article's creation by a sockpuppet of a UPE account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sjengul. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This will almost certainly be deleted, but if by some chance it is kept we should get rid of the misleading disambiguator from the title. There is no other article with the title "Hamza Abo$$" and he's a musician, not an artist. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmira Chakraborty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography rejected at AFC, repeatedly moved to mainspace and back to draft, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Music. Theroadislong (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, India, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no mainstream sources. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Fram (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source in Google found, and her article uses youtube as a source. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Blatant vanity piece, repeatedly recreated - Arjayay (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt per Oaktree, and Arjayay. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 11:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charisse Anne Hernandez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not appear to be notable. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National level politician as previously noted. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Japaneseism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is being nominated for deletion because I could not find any reliable sources that even mention the subject of this article. Also, none of the sources cited in this article are linked. So, this article might be a complete hoax that has been around for about 10 years straight. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (Talk) 3:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is a translation of a well-sourced article on ja.wiki that has been extensively edited by multiple editors since 2008. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mccapra is bang on the money here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sourcing on the Japanese version. As a comment, it is never a good sign when an editor has been involved in more AFDs (four) than the number of days they've been on Wikipedia (three). Editor may wish to review policies and conduct a thorough check WP:BEFORE nominating at AFD again, particularly given the error in this nomination. MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra and MaxnaCarter. This is a clear WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are sufficient Japanese language sources.Fulmard (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, let's make a source assessment table for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The issue is whether the ideology is documented by reliable sources, and Mccapra and MaxnaCarter have confirmed that it is. More generally, the existence of a hateful ideology is never an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Reliable sources are required, and have been shown to exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John-Paul Lavoisier

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks notability; one major role on One Life to Live and one brief stint on Days of our Lives. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as specified above and is clear from the article, there are no big or significant roles that would help realise WP:NACTORS policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Nwhyte (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers & United States. Pahiy (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a specific article. Fade258 (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The discussion has drawn minimal participation without decisive arguments in favor of either proposed outcome. (non-admin closure) — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhar Azzam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Islamist cleric Mooonswimmer 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mooonswimmer 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Mooonswimmer. There are very few hits in Google news, outside of small blogs. Fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems clearly notable, just search his name in google books and there are plenty of hits. Or google news. Here's one:

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/abu-zar-al-burmi-jihadi-cleric-and-anti-china-firebrand Not likeable and notable are not synonymous. CT55555 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IIMT University

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable school, COI edited by the (now blocked) 'Digital Team' with zero encyclopedic information in the article - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is recognized by the University Grants Commission (India) and is a official degree issuing private university.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep University does have news coverage, just not in English. Sizeable and notable university in a non-English speaking country. The article needs to be expanded and improved, not deleted. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 06:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Autonomous sizable degree-granting university, recognized by UGC and other required institutes. From a quick google news search I suspect enough coverage for a short article can be found, maybe not in English. The rational given, "COI edited by Digital team", is good for WP:RPP, not for WP:AfD. --Muhandes (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rivers Jr.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer. Success in junior events doesn't show notability. Had no significant wins as a pro and failed to qualify for the Olympics as an amateur. The coverage is just routine reporting of boxing results and interviews. Sandals2 (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Martial arts. Sandals2 (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable. IrishOsita (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has no notable accomplishments inside boxing, and has not fought any notable boxers. Couldn't find much of anything in terms of coverage, so WP:GNG also failed. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 08:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gastón Reyno

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable MMA fighter. One top tier MMA fight and highest world rank of 351. Being a sparring partner of "top fighters" doesn't make him notable. He's not in the list of nearly 50,000 competitors at taekwondodata.com, so it appears he's never competed at a major tkd tournament. Much of the coverage is interviews and typical fight reporting. Sandals2 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Sandals2 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As NSPORTS participation critera was effectively butchered (not that it matters anyway bellator wasn't a top tier promotion from 2015-2021), he fails WP:NMMA. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 08:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As page creator, I believe he meets GNG, which I haven't seen addressed. JTtheOG (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was addressed in the last sentence of the nomination. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly doesn't meet the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) or mixed martial arts fighters (WP:NMMA). I agree that most of the coverage is fight reporting, databases, and interviews--but there is some other coverage. I just don't think there's enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Singh Thind

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unsourced article. We need reliable secondary sources giving indepth coverage to justify an article. I could find none in my search. Being a farmer and being a soldier at his level are not default signs of notability, and even though the article claims his farming endevors were broadly impactful we have no sources to support this claim. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isnt he notable as a winner of the Padma Shri? Mccapra (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We would need sourcing first off. Since that is the 4th highest civilian medal in the country, I have doubts that its winners are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches indicated no notability. No sources cited. CT55555 (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Netherzone (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, nothing online. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fanafel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable footballer Lorenzo the great (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerosene (2022 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during new page patrol. Yet-unreleased film with no indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG ; nothing particularly indicate likely future notability, but that can be seen when the time comes. Coverage in sources is only of the release date and release of a n advertising poster. North8000 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Kpg jhp jm 06:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NFF / GNG. Unlikely to be notable even after release considering it's [mostly] non-notable cast/crew, may be recreated if and when it meets WP:NFILM -- Ab207 (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this was the upcoming movie, releasing on June 17th. I will add more references to this article.-- Pranayraj Vangari ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 07:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd personally have sent it to draft, but failing that, Delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaynard White

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian Nobel laureates

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Category-masquerading-as-an-article. Lacks any encyclopedic prose which is not just generic information about the Nobel Prizes or unsourced commentary, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is redundant to the existing category structure; and on top of that seems to include some amount of WP:V-failing material (which might as well be WP:OR) with the "also included sometimes" and "some Hungarian background" sections RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And jointly nominating all of the below too, for the same reasons:

(a few others have been nominated separately for different even more persuasive reasons) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All – All are qualified for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to their respective categories: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." These articles also serve as functional navigational aids as per WP:LISTPURP. For example, over the last 30 days, the List of Hungarian Nobel laureates page received a daily average of 21 page views per day, while the Category:Hungarian Nobel laureates page only received a daily average of 1 page view per day. Articles that would benefit from more sources for verification purposes can have maintenance templates requesting this work added to them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSTATS is a much stronger argument than some guideline about that. Lists are in article space and therefore subject to the standards of article space: articles should provide encyclopedic prose and context beyond mere trivialities. data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Page views are not convincing arguments for notability, much less for failing WP:NOT. If the articles were deleted, the exact same information would be available to the readers via categories (which would likely get a boost), which are the more appropriate way to organise this than some OR/NOT lists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CLN, Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. Beccaynr (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explained below (articles which are in effect duplicative of categories and which have no additional content whatsoever don't belong per WP:NOT); but I'll note that even if that were not the case, as pointed out below, a list by country already exists, so these sub-lists are really useless duplication, not just of the categories but of the existing list as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSTATS is concerning "excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but fact is, these articles are not statistical in nature. They do not present averages of sample values, regression analysis, sample sizes, statistical assumptions, statistical inferences, probability distributions, margins of error, etc. Sure, some of these would be improved by the addition of more background information regarding the various subjects, but the content in them simply provides basic information, as many list articles typically do. For an example of what actually comprises statistical content, see Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election § Two-way race. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete All - Unnecessary content forks of List of Nobel laureates by country. A list article for seperate nationalities is not useful as users can easily navigate to the respective section on List of Nobel laureates by country and continue from there. Golem08 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Geography is a notable group or set per WP:LISTN and e.g., How the Nobel Prize has favoured white western men for more than 100 years (The Telegraph, 2014, includes "Geographical analysis by the Telegraph has also revealed that western countries have received a disproportionately high number of awards throughout the Nobel's history."), What the Nobels are — and aren’t — doing to encourage diversity (Nature, 2018, includes a general focus on geography), Nobel Prize winners: How many women have won awards? (Telegraph, 2015, includes a list of "Representation among countries with more than five Nobel Prize winners"), Nobel Prize winners: Which country has the most Nobel laureates? (Telegraph, 2015). Geography as it relates to Nobel Prize winners is a notable group or set per the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources you give have little to do with specific countries (being behind a paywall doesn't help, but even from the titles, they might be useful for a List of Nobel laureates by country, but not for a List of Nobel laureates from foo country); and one which lists "which country has the most Nobel laureates" is in no way an indicator that a listing by-individual-country provides anything encyclopedically pertinent. Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. If the only thing that can be said about Nobel winners from foo country is "Here is a list of Nobel winners from foo country", then the list is not an appropriate encyclopedic entry, because it has no encyclopedic content, as it is a bare listing, not in anyway an insightful "summary of knowledge" as an encyclopedia ought to be. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the List of Asian Nobel laureates AfD, there is also The amazing history of the Nobel Prize, told in maps and charts (Washington Post, 2013, "We've added up every Nobel awarded since 1901 and separated them out by country. The results are fascinating – and revealing."), and as noted in the List of female Nobel laureates AfD, there is The Nobel Prize (1901-2000) Handbook of Landmark Records, which includes geographic and nationality data (e.g. 32-44), with context related to nationality changes (pp. 40-41). Beccaynr (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That source manages to name not a single Nobel laureate. That source ([17]) is in fact mostly not about any single country. It might be pertinent for List of Nobel laureates by country; but I don't see how any of the content in that source would be useful for any of the article above, except maybe as some very generic context - in fact, except for appearing in some of the charts, only very few countries are even directly mentioned - and those that are are mostly what would in any other context clearly be a trivial mention (i.e. he top 10 countries with the most Nobel laureates, in order. Pay attention to how top-heavy this list is; the numbers drop precipitously: [followed by a straight top-ten listing] is not sufficient depth of coverage to write an encyclopedic article on any one of those countries) and not significant coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LISTN, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. These are lists of individuals who form the notable group, because the grouping of Nobel winners by geography and nationality is a notable topic. These shorter lists by country are WP:SPINOFFs that allow more detail, images, and information to be added as compared to the brief summary style at List of Nobel laureates by country. Beccaynr (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the reference to WP:NOTDUP to be very relevant and convincing rebuttal for the deletion justification. CT55555 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep all List articles are real articles. We can have a category and a list too. One of several good reasons is that the list can provide more information than the category, which is really just links. Strong arguments above to keep. These lists are extraordinarily WP:DISCRIMINATE and many would say even "elite" -- there is nothing "indiscriminate" about them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How disappointingly incorrect. One could even think they're on Reddit and say "r/confidentlyincorrect". WP:INDISCRIMINATE says quite unambiguously that To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. None of these lists do any of that - they are raw listings which duplicate categories and provide no "summary of knowledge" to readers. And notability (or suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia) is not inherited. The Nobels might be notable, but every single sub-division or possible intersection of the group with another is not instantaneously acceptable. As for the list-vs-category argument, there is already a more global list, List of Nobel laureates by country, one which isn't unnecessarily split and with often OR inclusion criteria (for example, is Emilio Segrè really an "Italian" Nobel laureate? Not only was he a citizen of the USA when the award was given to him, but the work he undertook which resulted in him getting the Nobel also happened in the USA. Same with Riccardo Giacconi). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um... "reddit" ?? that's just WP:STRAWMAN ("This list is not notable and I'm wrong because--Reddit") - as to the content of the list (such as is Emilio Segrè really an "Italian" Nobel laureate?) those would be editing issues and not deletion issues. At most, discuss them on the article talk page. Even if one or several of those on the list are incorrectly on the list (and I'm not saying that they are or are not), that would not mean to delete the entire article. AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that every single one of these articles has the same WP:OR issues and the same WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues (one which you clumsily try to dismiss by implying that this being an "elite" grouping does not make this indiscriminate) means this clearly falls under both WP:DELREASON no. 14 (due to failing WP:NOT) and no. 6 (due to failing WP:OR). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WABBITSEASON just saying the same argument over and over again does nothing for either of us. I leave it to whoever closes this discussion to decide if the topic does or does not pass WP:OR, WP:LISTN, and all the other arguments brought forth.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the nominator's arguments are fundamentally flawed. Category-masquerading-as-an-article: it's fine to have a category and a list on the same topic per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, so this argument has no value. Lacks any encyclopedic prose which is not just generic information about the Nobel Prizes: this isn't an article, it's a list, and we don't expect lists to have substantial prose. This standard, if adopted, would lead to the deletion of most featured lists on Wikipedia, and so it's well outside community expectations. seems to include some amount of WP:V-failing material: the idea that the lists are unverifiable is clearly wrong as it's entirely possible to verify someone's nationality and the fact they won a Nobel prize. If there are problems with individual entries in individual lists, then that is a very poor reason to delete and contradicts the deletion policy. Nor is it an unencyclopedic topic, as Nobel laureates are clearly encyclopedic and nationality is an obvious cross-categorisation.
The idea that this is redundant to List of Nobel laureates by country is a more sensible argument, but that list is long enough that we should be considering splitting into sublists anyway, the sortable tables in each of these lists are more useful than the unformatted list presented there, and it would have to be a redirect rather than deletion because these are plausible search terms. Hut 8.5 07:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, actually, we don't expect lists to have substantial prose is just false. WP:FLCR clearly says that lists should have high-quality prose; a substantial lead; and that this should be comprehensive. A list which only has "Here's a list of foo from country bar" does not meet any of that. Simply because foo happens to be "Nobel prize winners" does not make this issue disappear: it makes it in fact more obvious how, indeed, most intersections of A and B (heck, if we can't say anything substantial about Nobel winners, figure what we can say about other, less significant awards) are not suitable groupings for an encyclopedic article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be confusing Wikipedia:Featured list criteria with Wikipedia:Notability (specifically WP:LISTN). "Featured List Criteria" is a wonderful project page outlining what that project wants lists to eventually look like and qualify for a featured list. However, 1) it's not a deletion criteria of any sort; and 2) the word "substantial" or any similar reference describing the detail of prose just isn't there. Failing WP:FLCR is not grounds for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? You think that this list should be deleted because it doesn't meet featured content standards? That's beyond ridiculous and I hoped you knew better than than to argue that. It's true that at the FL level lists usually have a paragraph or two to introduce the topic, often duplicating the relevant article, but the absence of something like that doesn't mean the list should be deleted and even FLs don't usually have significant prose outside the lead. Hut 8.5 16:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You can't bring up an incorrect statement and then double down with a strawman. You brought up the idea "we don't expect lists to have substantial prose". As my comments prove, we actually do, and if they don't, and the prose is so lacking in substance as to be merely "Here's a list of [List titlte]", then it also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as data lacking context or encyclopedic value. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it's time to call in a third party of some kind. We clearly are having serious disconnection on the matter at hand and any policies, guidelines, and rules that come into affect.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not a neutral observer here, I !voted keep. But as a non-neutral observer, I suggest people pause. We can see the points of disagreement and you might not all reach consensus, and maybe that's OK. Who ever closes can see the differing perspectives. CT55555 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – More information can be put into those articles than there is in one section of the List of Nobel laureates by country. They may include, for example, the image and lifespan of a Nobel laureate and the reasons for receiving the Nobel Prize in more detail. Other important or interesting information, such as information about career of a Nobel laureate, can also be added to those articles. While those articles aren’t as comprehensive as they could be, they contain enough information to keep them. Luurankosoturi (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree with what Hut 8.5 has written, which seems straightforward. I have no idea why List of Pakistani Nobel laureates appears here (with four entries) and yet the featured list List of Indian Nobel laureates does not. Perhaps it's because a few lines have been added to the lead. Splitting the list by countries as Hut 8.5 suggests seems like a good idea, particularly when the number of entries is small, so that the use of the word "statistics" has no meaning (all entries are exceptional). The image and caption connected for List of Israeli Nobel laureates is informative. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beyond the usual stalking by Mathsci (evidence detailed elsewhere) and some claims about how geography is inherently a notable grouping, none of the keep comments addresses the lack of reliable sources discussing about each of these intersections or the often very obviously OR content of a fair few of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can !vote here, per standard wikipedia policy. As edit histories/diffs show, lists of Israeli, Russian and Hungarian Nobel laureates were first mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Nobel laureates by religion (several being Jewish emigrées, like Eugene Wigner). Knowledge of the use of statistics and its significance requires training, usually at university in a scientific environment: selecting exceptional scientists, writers or humanitarians in physics, chemistry, medicine, economics, literature and peace is not a random process. That is true in particular when applied to a small number from India or Pakistan. Is it so hard to create four sentences for a lead paragraph involving Pakistan (or similar countries)? The multiple edits attempting to delete the featured list — List of female Nobel laureates — were unhelpful; the "initiative" Draft:Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes has apparently been abandoned. Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I haven't edited something in a few days doesn't mean it's been abandoned, it just means other things have gotten in the way. Now stop following me around and spare me the fancy explanations how you got involved in a topic you never edited before. The long sentence about Knowledge of the use of statistics seems like an obtuse attempt at saying I don't have a clue, which is either just impolite, or a deliberately thinly veiled personal attack, or both. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My editing history and diffs shows that I mentioned the three lists in the AfD above and only after that were they listed for AfD. I agree with the statements of Hut 8.5 and others, which I now reaffirm with the previous !vote. The mathematical physics statements concerning Eugene Wigner (and von Neumann) were mentioned a month ago in an article talk page. As long ago as 2006, I mentioned Physics laureate Gerard 't Hooft in a now deleted BLP; it was later kept as a pseudoscience article Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory — a cautionary tale about delusions of grandeur. Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

The sources presented show there is independent and reliable support for the lists - another is Infographic: Nobel Prize winners 1901-2021 (Al Jazeera, 2021), which includes specific countries, and the New York Times includes secondary context related to geographic origin in 2021 Nobel Prize Winners: Full List, and National Geographic also finds these distinctions 'worthy of notice': Who Are the Nobel Prize Winners? We've Crunched the Numbers. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these provide in-depth (i.e. "significant" as required by the guidelines) coverage of specific countries. An entry in a stats table or an infographic is not significant coverage. Coverage of "Nobel prizes by country" is not necessarily coverage of "Nobel prizes in country X", and even if "country X" happens to be mentioned somewhere, there is no guarantee such a mention (the first of the sources you list is an obvious example of this) is substantial enough to write an encyclopedic article (as opposed to a directory cross-categorisation) on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LISTN, The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been, and the grouping of geographic origin is documented by multiple independent and reliable sources. Also, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability and this discussion has also included the benefits of these lists and how they can present more information and be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice to the sources already mention, the following book provides significant coverage:

Hargittai, István. The road to Stockholm: Nobel Prizes, science, and scientists. Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2002. CT55555 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With a title like that, the book could be about literally anything related to Nobels. Does that book specifically cover the intersections/groups of "Nobel laureates from country X", in a more encyclopedic fashion than merely a listing in a stats table? If so, on which pages exactly? @Becca: A trivial mention in a stats table, consisting of a country's name and the number of Nobels it won, is not a justification for an article as articles are not stats tables. I do not see how the list fulfills any "recognized informational, navigation or development purpose". All the articles about Nobel laureates already exists, and the lists do not provide any additional information, except some WP:OR about "also included sometimes" people or the like. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it dos cover the intersection of nobel laureates by country. That is why I mentioned it in the context of telling you it's a book that provides significant coverage of the topic we are discussing at AfD.

It cover the topic on so many pages that it would be overwhelming to list them. It's a key theme in the book.

I get the impression that you doubt the accuracy of my statement, and are struggling to assume good faith here, so to help you with that, I'll just pick one example, Hungary, the one that you've used as the pilot/example. The book talks about Hungary 26 times in the context of Nobel prizes, with the clearest examples of what would be needed on pages 30, 36, 38, 47, 120. CT55555 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the accuracy of your statement, because previous examples (like the Al Jazeera infographics; or the other news articles which cover [to the level required by SIGCOV] the broad topic of Nobels and geography, but not the specific and more narrow intersections of "Nobel winners" and "country X") were unambiguously not significant coverage. P. 30 is a trivial mention of Hungary in a listing along with half a dozen other countries (The emerging pattern is that Germany, Austria, Canada, Hungary, Italy, and Poland, in decreasing order, have exported the largest number of Nobel laureates. is not SIGCOV of "Nobel laureates from Hungary"; nor of any of the others) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book, as a whole thing, provides significant coverage. Any one sentence taken in isolation and quoted without the rest of it, is obviously going to seem less significant. It seems disingenuous to quote only one line of a book in this context.

Would you quote one line from a book about IBM computers and then say it was trivial because the line only mentioned IBMs once?

Your approach to this debate suggests that no amount of new information will cause you to update your analysis here. I find it quite strange that even in the context of me pointing out a book that is very much about the topic in hand, and telling you the multiple pages where this topic is discussed, that you're still debating this. CT55555 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What can be significant coverage of "Nobel prizes by country" or "Geographic distribution of Nobel prizes" is not necessarily significant coverage of "Nobel prizes in country X" for all X. Coverage of "Sexism" or "Sexism across the world" is not necessarily coverage of "Sexism in country X"; coverage of "[Insert random sport here]" is not necessarily coverage of "[Insert random sport here] in country X". Same difference. The sources you show all have significant coverage of the broad topic, but not of individual, narrower intersections. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to discuss the individual merits of every article, nominating 14 articles into one AFD discussion page seems like a suboptimal way to do that. It implies to me that you see them as all notable, or all not. So I've chosen Hungary as the one to refute, which seems like a logical way to proceed, based on the choices you've made. If you wanted 14 different discussions, you probably should have started 14 AfDs. CT55555 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section titled "Citizens of the World", at pp. 30 - 34, appears to be an example of significant coverage of geographic groups and sets in that book, with further discussion of geographic origin at p. 38. Beccaynr (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also The Nobel Scientists and the Origins of Scientific Achievement (The British Journal of Sociology , 1981), which states that it includes national origin in its analysis. And beginning at p. 88, in a section titled "Nobel Identities: Language and Nation", through at least p. 109, The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige offers additional significant coverage of the geographic groups. Beccaynr (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With the exception of one weak delete, it's a bit WP:SNOWBALL keep here, with seven editors !voting keep, and several of us making long, detailed, repeated explanations why and only the nominator appearing to disagree with any of the keep arguments. I suggest this be withdrawn, rather than taking up more time discussing this, when the outcome seems clear. CT55555 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, redundant to self-maintaining categories. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:NOTDUP where it states, "it is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article-space stuff stills needs to meet article-space requirements (and I'll point at WP:NOT, which is actually policy). Pointing at NOTDUP as though it were some magic wand is as unconvincing as it is a tired argument. One should also see WP:SALAT. If the only thing a list does is duplicate a category, without any evidence that the specific intersection it covers is notable (even if some people shout at the top of their lungs that it is inherently notable because "Nobels" or something); and without any informative stuff to say to our readers, then, emphatically, no, it is not a good way to present this (non-)information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the categories could be considered as being redundant to these list articles. Content in Main namespace articles is verifiable per the use of inline citations and references, whereas category content is not verified or sourced. If anything, the categories are inferior, rather than the articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article-space stuff stills needs to meet article-space requirements. You can't have a "List of Nobel laureates by [insert random characteristic here]" for every such random characteristic even if the information about [insert random characteristic here] is verifiable. If there is no source which has written specifically about the intersection of "Nobel laureates" and "random characteristic", then it doesn't belong in article space. No source has been presented here which does more than cover the broad topic of "geographic distribution/bias/ of Nobel laureates", or maybe trivially say "X country has Y Nobel laureates" without going into any further detail (thus clearly not being the necessary WP:SIGCOV). There are plenty of categories which are split along nationality or other criteria - for usually valid reasons - without those being proper subjects for lists or articles in article-space. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Valid navigational and informational list. Dream Focus 23:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of Korean Nobel laureates to Kim Dae-jung as only one Korean has actually won a Nobel prize. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of DC Comics characters: V. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vext

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vext was the name of both a very short-lived comic and its titular hero, neither of which appear to pass the WP:GNG. Despite being made by a pretty impressive creative team, the series does not seem to have garnered any attention at all, as I was unable to find any sources that consisted of more than brief mentions. The only source included in the article that is not just an issue of the comics themselves is not actually on the character. This could possibly be used as a Redirect to Keith Giffen, but as there is no sourced content here that is outside of the plot summary, there is nothing that should actually be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Best thing I’ve found so far is a blog entry on how forgotten it is, which is not exactly encouraging. It’s bizarrely under covered for a big name in comics at the start of the internet age. Will probably delve around a bit more but it isn’t looking good. Artw (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not find any reliable third party coverage to establish notability. If someone finds a valid redirect target that can't hurt. Jontesta (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: V (could even merge a few sentences, I guess). Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the first sentence in the publication history is true, there was probably coverage of it in Wizard or Comic Buyer's Guide. I thought Sovereign Seven was the only comic to fit that description. If a source for that can be found and the article refactored to cover the series instead of the character, I'd support keeping. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen Effect

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted via PROD, then contested at WP:RFUD. It was soft deleted at AfD due to a lack of quorum and has been reinstated at RFUD again. This article is promotional enough that one could have made a WP:CSD#G11 nomination (the article's creator likely has a WP:COI). The sourcing is not compliant, and this is after I have done WP:BEFORE and another user tried to improve the article prior to the soft deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Dance, Radio, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly been a colourful time, but the article is indeed promotional and its subject doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:SINGER, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb no more promotional than any other artist on Wikipedia. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The musician has been around for a long time and seems to have made a living as a jack-of-all-media-trades under many different names. But the reliable media seems not to have noticed, as I can only find passing mentions of this person in the background of articles about other people, and their own press releases and streaming service entries. The article serves as an advertisement and personal biography, neither of which is appropriate for Wikipedia. No matter how much someone argues about the musician's lengthy career and self-promotional endeavors, the necessary sources just aren't out there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 Every living singer with a Wikipedia article could be classified as an advertisement or personal biography then if thats the case. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, but you must realize that people here are familiar with this site's policies and have been for a long time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and people/things must qualify for inclusion. Many of us voting to delete Chosen Effect's article have cited longstanding policies on who qualifies for a Wikipedia article and why. Please consider the opportunity for a learning experience, and read those policies carefully. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520 Interesting that you mention this sites policies because one of the biggest is to make every effort to improve an article rather than deleting it. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have made those efforts. They have not led the article to a place where it should be saved. Deletion is an important part of the encyclopedia as well. I recommend that you put your efforts to use on other pages and not continue to sink it in here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The changes made to the article since I originally PRODded it do not satisfy my concerns. Chosen Effect seems like an interesting person, and perhaps someday some reliable sources will take note of her story and write about it, but until then, we should not have an article on her. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin artist discography is full of published works with verifiable barcodes and other record label associated codes. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been doing much research on this artist and they had huge success in Japan in the 1990's in particular. I have been able to find multiple verifiable music releases which citations have been created for. This artist has multiple music releases that were released under major record labels in Japan which are all verifiable as barcodes and other record Label associated codes exist and are part of the publishing process of musical works. If this is article is considered promotional and or an advertisement then the same could be said just about every other article on Wikipedia depending on how one chooses to perceive such things. The moment any persons name is mentioned, their accomplishments and or occupations past or present can all be seen as a form of promotion or advertising which is particularly true when it comes to entertainers. If you feel this article sounds promotional then why not help to improve it so that it does not. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu You have stated that the articles creator likely has a conflict of interest which is your opinion not based on any actual facts which in all due respect only serves to facilitate negative bias towards this articles existence. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by a single-purpose account called Icecoldrecords. A potential COI of the article creator wanting to promote one of their artists is obvious and not at all biased. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu that is your assumption. There is proof that this artist has released music with Sony Music, Pony Canyon, Vircenia Records, Trycle Records & Avex Trax but no where do I see any proof of this artist ever releasing or being an artist under the name icecoldrecords. So again your claim is mere speculation. All of the above are verifiable yours is not. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LiterateFactChecker: You're conflating verifiability with notability. When I first found the Chosen Effect article, I had trouble verifying her existence at first, but did eventually find sources I found satisfactory to that limited end. But that isn't enough. In 2022, most people's existence is verifiable just by finding their social media. In many cases, people's existence is even verifiable through independent reliable sources. Mine is: I've been mentioned briefly in a few news articles over the years—but I'm no one notable. Notability is a harder bar to pass than verifiability, or even verifiability through independent reliable sources. The important distinction is that the coverage has to be significant. That's something of a term of art here, because yeah, showing up in a lot of track listings or press releases—if Chosen Effect has—is significant in the sense of "voluminous". But what we mean is things like profiles of the artist, or at least reviews by reputable sources—generally, a sense that independent reliable sources think that this is someone worth knowing about, rather than coming up in passing in routine coverage. The reason we set the car isn't just to gatekeep: It's not really possible to write a quality article when you don't have that kind of coverage to work with.
As someone who cares a lot about improving our coverage of nonbinary people, and showing the diversity of that community, like I said, I think she's an interesting person and it's a shame that no one's picked up this interesting story. But until someone does, we can't write an article on her that says anything meaningful. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that SPA doesn't have a COI with the subject of the article, the article still fails our notability requirements. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin@Muboshgu I personally feel our duty is to also be willing to take the time to actually dig deep and improve articles of all sorts especially ones of this nature of an accomplished artist. I too care which is why I have been passionately putting the time into doing the research and working to improve this article. I have already managed to discover many things and even now just updated another piece of information with supporting citation. I am confident in time that this article will continue to be improved on. We all are here wanting to do our part on Wikipedia and I feel exactly the same. Of the 6,506,930 articles on Wikipedia i feel that since this one is actively being improved upon that there does not need to be a sense of urgency to delete this one particularly. The burning desire that you seem to have to delete an article of an 90's artist that has literally been on Wikipedia for almost a decade baffles me. I could understand if there was not a single Wiki editor wanting to put in the work to continue improving the article but clearly that is not the case as besides myself I have seen there has been others that have also contributed. Improving articles should be our first line of action deletion should only reluctantly be a last resort. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu I noticed you have now decided to also go after this artists groups Wikipedia page now. It really does seem that you have some sort of issue with this person. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make this personal. It's a reasonable debate about content, not ad hominem abuse. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with Wikipedia articles about non-notable subjects, yes. This will be my last reply to you here, as your WP:BLUDGEONING of this discussion is not productive in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu not Bludgeoning whatsoever merely sharing my point of view in discussion. That is the point of a discussion page. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging - Could this article potentially be Merged with the artists groups Wikipedia could that be a possible solution? LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb@Doomsdayer520@Muboshgu@Spiderone@Tamzin I have a fair comments/questions I would like you all to consider. Wikipedia policies says to consider alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting. I am personally doing so as you all know and over the many years this article has existed the history shows that other editors have contributed as well. If an article is constantly being improved upon why the sudden rush to delete it especially after existing for 15 years?

Merging - I've asked the question if perhaps doing so with the artists groups Wikipedia article could be a solution?

@Alexandermcnabb says don't make it personal which I agree with which is why has @Muboshgu now decided to also go after the artists groups 10 year old Wikipedia article for deletion after I improved upon the article which the act of doing so according to Wikipedia policy meant the article proposed deletion was null in void after removing the tag within the 7 day time period. The very moment I did the mentioned immediately nominated the article for deletion?

A 15 and 10 year old article that has multiple admins and editors looking over the articles for all these years is suddenly being pushed to be deleted seems odd in my opinion and again unnecessary in accordance of Wikipedias policy of improving upon an article as opposed to deleting it. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering how I found the article, it's because I monitor nonbinary people's articles for potential misgendering. When you corrected Chosen Effect's pronouns, that tripped the filter (which has no way to distinguish between misgendering and a valid correction). When I went to see if your edit had been correct or incorrect, I found it exceptionally hard to even find out what her pronouns are; to me, difficulty in verifying basic facts is often a good proxy for whether someone is notable, and my subsequent research bore that out. So, that's how this landed on my radar. To be clear, there's lots of old articles that get deleted. Age doesn't count for that much. I've found articles as old as 2007 that failed even our most basic "credible claim of significance" test (a test that this article passes). Heck, I found an article a while ago that was 90% unsourced statements added in 2004, which I had to cut down to "stub" size. Furthermore, notability standards change in time. I found another article from the early '00s on an obscure Indian businessman, which was unanimously deleted at AfD... But which had been kept in a previous AfD some 15 years ago because "he passes the Google test" (meaning he gets a nonzero number of Google hits); needless to say, that's no longer seen as a reason to keep an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TamzinThanks for clarifying and the additional insight. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Citation added LiterateFactChecker (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citation Added LiterateFactChecker (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love Of words everyday: KEEP... I am not an academic, I am a person who has followed Faith for many years... I personally do not understand why anyone would even think of wanting to delete Faith's Wikipedia Article. This is a record of her life's achievements, her legacy, one that will be continued for many years to come. I do not see this Article as promotional at all, but rather full of interesting information and Facts about this artists life, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about, keeping the people informed about people's achievements!

When I 1st discovered "Chosen Effect/Faith Chase" I found alot of information on her and in time I came to Wikipedia and found out so much more information, I didn't realize that people could edit these pages until now... Never thought that people could request for Wikipedia Articles to be deleted, I find this to be extremely unsettling, to think that someone might have a grudge against someone and they feel that it is their right to have the Wikipedia Articles deleted, you can come up with any reason that you like, but in the end I feel that this is nothing more than someone being Nasty for whatever reason! I personally have just purchased some of Faith's earlier Albums.. "Subsonic Factor and Terry T" just last week, before I read this deletion request. I would like to thank all the people in the know, than understands how Wikipedia works, for taking the time to continue to update and improve on Faith's Article, I for one, Greatly Appreciated it! Please KEEP this Beautiful Artists Information available for all to see and learn about... It would be a shame and a great loss to lose Chosen Effect's Wikipedia Page defining her Achievements/her legacy. Kind Regards, "Love of words everyday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love of words everyday (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note to reviewer the account posting the above screed was created today (June 6). Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPI was closed as likely canvassed/fans. So going to be whack a mole. Star Mississippi 22:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I admire the effort, but this is a purely promotional vanity page, and the weak sourcing reflects that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate efforts to improve articles, but the additions are just more content drawn from YouTube, Discogs, blogs and the like. Bottom line: no evidence has yet been presented that this subject has ever received independent reliable source coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, fails WP:NBASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chroma (character)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable fictional character that fails the WP:GNG. Searching for sources turns up some fan sites, but nothing in reliable, secondary sources. According to the DC wiki, the character only had a small handful of appearances. The article was WP:PRODed by User:TTN back in 2019 with the rationale that it failed the WP:GNG, but the prod was removed by a now-banned user with the suggestion of a Merge discussion that never happened, and would not make sense given the lack of notability for the character. The single source that was added to the article since then is simply a brief plot summary of their first appearance. The character does not even have an entry in the officially published "DC Comics Encyclopedia", just to demonstrate how minor of a character it is. Rorshacma (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the detailed nom ( which is greatly appreciated). The previously proposed merge target does not mention this character, and there is no sourced material to merge. -2pou (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article fails the WP:GNG due to a lack of valid sources. Jontesta (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing GNG and being entirely plot summary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: C. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyank Sharma

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Same reasons at the last time. Coverage is very poor. Its csd's, page protected, G5, G13'd, redirected. Looking for another redirect. scope_creep^Talk 00:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not fulfill notability requirements. IrishOsita (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fashion, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt His appearance as a contestant in several notable reality show seasons precludes the possibility of a redirect. It was repeatedly restored as a redirect,and nobody has provided signs of meeting GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Leighton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has had some impressive patrons, but her work does not appear to have won significant critical attention, nor represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Likely fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, United Kingdom, and England. Ploni (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was a BBC news television piece about her in 1975 (don't let "Twitter" in the url fool you). While some is primary interview, there is also secondary conent. https://archive.org/details/twitter-674991413969326080 She was famous in a time when sources were offline, which makes verification of the current offline sources impossible, but I assume good faith for offline sources in this context. Especially having found the BBC footage, which is a first in this kind of situation for me, suggesting she is more notable than normal. CT55555 (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, she is the subject of a painting that is in a museum. Details from a primary source, but seems like an unlikely lie https://www.aahorsham.co.uk/content/saraleighton

Someone selling pictures of her in 2014 https://twitter.com/davidharpertv/status/455986892102971392

1971 Daily Telegraph mentions her only briefly, but says she has paintings on display all over the world: https://archive.org/stream/TheDailyTelegraph1971UKEnglish/Jul%2019%201971%2C%20The%20Daily%20Telegraph%2C%20%2336140%2C%20UK%20%28en%29_djvu.txt CT55555 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to find any independent secondary sources? I'm not sure her being the subject of a painting that (she believes) is in a museum, or one that was once offered for sale, is sufficient to meet the notability guidelines for an artist. It sounds like she may in fact meet WP:GNG, I have so far been unable to find the newspaper articles cited, so I'm not sure if the coverage in them is significant. –Ploni (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being the subject of art surely does not pass WP:ARTIST but I think (am not certain) it's relevant for WP:GNG. We tend to consider words about someone, I'm not used to assessing images about people. At risk of getting philosophical, painting pictures does require a lot more effort than writing.

I contend that the BBC piece includes secondary elements in the introductory section. I found an old book that wrote about her being mentored, but Google Books didn't let me see enough to mention here. So I don't have much to add beyond what I said above. CT55555 (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's one of those cases where even if no individual secondary source has written about her in depth, so many, very many, sources have quoted her or written about her in extremely notable situations that she must qualify as notable. The queen mother portrait is probably sufficient on its own: this is sourced, and frankly it requires a phenomenal level of naivete to believe that even pre-internet an unimportant artist could just rock up at the gates of Buckingham palace waving a pencil around and expect to be allowed to sketch a key royal; getting a painting into Buckingham palace is just about as hard as getting one into the national gallery (which would instantly qualify her for notability). But even if we consider her artistic career to be only marginally-notable, we also have some authorship going on, and some impact as an actress, and the sum of all these nearly-notable activities, all of which are recorded in non-primary sources, must add up to overall notability. Besides which, our readers are quite likely to come across her and wonder who she is, and what else she has done with her life. We should tell them. Elemimele (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good Lord, chaps, but she only played Anne in the 1952 TV series Anne of Green Gables! Not the best of sources, mind. But wasn't she beautiful? Her stage name was Shirley Lorimer, although she was born Shirley M. I. Loraine - a woman of many parts. Here's her at Getty Images as a schoolgirl and here at Alamy when she was 18 years old. Here's one of her pieces, listed at Nicholson's right here! So we have a bona-fide artist and actress who is notably notable, I'd say. And quite a fun bit of BEFORE, too! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elementals (DC Comics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-notable group of fictional characters that, according to this very article, made a single appearance in an issue of a Super Friends spin off comic. There is not a single reliable source being used in the article, and searching for sources basically turns up nothing on these characters. Any sources actually discussing the concept of "elementals" in DC comics are basically all talking about Swamp Thing and the concepts created in that book, not this non-notable group. Rorshacma (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Of the few incoming links, there doesnt seem to be a good redirect target option that provides any information on them beyond the name. -2pou (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as there is not a single reliable source to meet our policies and guidelines, including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That the only source currently used is a blog-type page called "Obscure Characters, E" was an indication that quality sources covering the subject in depth might be difficult to find. I found none. If some source content is found, perhaps merge it to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as comic-cruft that fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. Single ref is to a dead fanpage, section "Obscure Characters, E". Riiiight. Major fail of WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are good arguments for retaining (and improving) or deleting the article, and they both pretty much cancel each other out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional antiheroes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The antihero is obviously a notable topic, but I'm not convinced that a list of them is notable in the academic sense. The contents are mostly rolling up listicles and similar non-RS, or sources that label specific characters in passing as antiheroes.

Aside from that, this 2008 CfD, along with prior CfDs under different titles, established that the label of an antihero is too broad and subjective for a category, so it is probably also too subjective for a list (WP:SALAT). In light of this, the quality of the references, the tendency to attract unsourced entries, and the removal of sourced entries that editors disagree with, are unsurprising. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 284 references in the article. Plenty of blue links in the columns, makes it a valid navigational list for those who want to find articles for antiheroes, and provides information about what notable series they were from and what author created them and what year they were published. Dream Focus 01:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with much pruning. There are a few (not 284) references consisting of lists of antiheroes, so WP:NLIST is satisfied. However, due to the serious disagreements as to who is or isn't one, as alluded to in the intro, entries should be restricted to those that have multiple sterling sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would then suggest adopting WP:LISTCRITERIA analogous to those used at List of military disasters: only include entries where multiple (i.e. at least two) sources specifically dealing with the subject of antiheroes refer to the character in question as an antihero. Further refinement may be necessary. For instance, perhaps only characters with stand-alone Wikipedia articles should be included? And there is of course the issue of which sources to consider—an article in Review of General Psychology and a listicle by Screen Rant are not the same in terms of quality, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Information in any article only needs one reference to prove it if its in doubt. No reason to require more. Dream Focus 19:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not actually true across the board, since there are some circumstances in which we do indeed require multiple references. The clearest example is probably WP:Exceptional claims, where policy explicitly says Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. For something like this list, where it's not a matter of facts but rather subjective assessments, requiring multiple sources may simply be a reasonable application of WP:WEIGHT so as not to unduly include the views of tiny minorities. That being said, I do agree with Reywas92 below that including a handful of examples that are discussed/examined in-depth by WP:RELIABLE sources in the main Antihero article is probably a preferable alternative (I'm reminded of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that pass the Bechdel test, where I made a similar point). TompaDompa (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OLIST - the scope of the list is too large to reasonably maintain. A great deal of the characters in fiction can conceivably be called antiheroes. This is an example of a list that does not truly benefit people due to its vagueness. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's by no means special or remarkable that not every main character is flawless. Antihero is a fairly short article and would be improved with expanded discussion and even further listing (in prose) of the most significant antiheroes who have been widely analyzed, but a list spanning all forms of media with several hundred entries (but still obviously wildly incomplete) and no useful commentary is not a quality or appropriate list. Too many sources are low-quality listicles or passing mentions of the word "antihero", without encyclopedic usefulness. An example of how poor this is is Indiana Jones, whose first citiation is the above Screen Rant listicle that doesn't even mention him...and the second is this unreliable blog post that gives a mere passing mention after writing "The list of phenomenal Anti-Heroes is practically endless." I want to compare this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (4th nomination), as here we also see inclusion criteria that are so overly broad the list becomes useless, being those that fall under a very generic term that is easily thrown around to describe something that is hardly uncommon and not consistently defined. This page does have some higher-quality sources, but they would be better introduced to the main article with more explained examples there rather than pretending that a sea of blue links in a list that is both incomplete and overly inclusive (Donald Duck?) is actually good for navigation. Like seriously, when the lead has to say "Each of these examples has been identified by a critic as an antihero, although the classification remains fairly subjective. Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources and some may contradict all established definitions of antihero", it's inherently not a good list. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reywas92 explained the issues with this list very well. Having a list with potentially hundreds of entries just because some click-bait "Pop Culture Top Ten" style list somewhere on the internet happened to throw around the term "anti-hero" once when referring to them does not help navigation in any way. This list currently contains things ranging from heroic characters who may have a few flaws to outright irredeemable villains, all because somewhere, someone happened to use the word "anti-hero" when discussing them. Per Reywas92's suggestion, some of the actual prominent examples that have multiple sources that go beyond top-ten lists or simply dropping in the word "anti-hero" when describing them without any actual discussion can and should be mentioned on the main article on the topic. This massive list of poorly cited blue links, however, does not help supplement the information on the main article in any way, nor does it serve a useful purpose as a navigational list, per the discussion above. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's awfully weird to have James Bond, a hero who can be a selfish womanizer, grouped with Hannibal Lecter, a serial killer. And then this time looking at it I see Sheldon Cooper, a comedic character with his ups and downs and I'd say neither a hero or antihero or whatever, but somehow sourced to this listicle, which doesn't even mention him.... This list is worthless junk and having it on the project is embarassing. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Weak delete. Classic list OR. Who calls them antiheroes (some are referenced, fine, so at minimum a pruning is needed)? But worse, which reliable work attempts to list "all antiheroes"? Failure of WP:LISTN is a major problem. Note, however, that some content here might be warranted merging into antihero. For example, IF [18] is a RS, the claim that Lazarillo de Tormes is the first antihero (rather dubious, IMHO) would be worth preserving. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a list to be suitable for Wikipedia, in contrast to what the nomination posits, it is not that secondary sources have to treat such lists. Rather it is sufficient that the group or set is notable. This is clearly the case for the concept of antihero, as the nomination itself admits. In contrast to other lists we have on Wikipedia, this is mostly sourced, so I can't see any poblem with subjectivity. Lastly, as has been stated before, with it's large number of blue links this list serves a navigational purpose. Failing that, I would obviously prefer a merge of relevant examples to expand the quite short antihero article to deletion, which would be the way supported by WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG due to a lack of third party sources. The list is almost all WP:OR. To some other editors' comments, Antihero is a notable topic and already has an article. This does not support the creation of endless non-notable WP:CONTENTFORKS. Jontesta (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jontesta: Why should this fail WP:LISTN and therefore WP:GNG, when antihero is a notable topic? Antihero is the corresponding "group or set" to List of fictional antiheroes, the discussion of which WP:LISTN uses as its main critereon. How is it "almost all WP:OR", when most of the content is referenced? And a list of notable instances of a topic, for navigational purposes, cannot be a case disallowed by WP:CONTENTFORK - otherwise every list which were to fullfill the WP:LISTN critereon would be a content fork of that topic! It's also explicitely not one of the cases listed as unacceptable by WP:CONTENTFORK. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't think a list this arbitrary is really a group or set in the first place. If you someone asked what Bugs Bunny, Hannibal Lecter, Lester Burnham, Jason Bourne, Mike Zuckerberg, and Oscar the Grouch had in common, they'd be hard pressed to tell you. Having been called a subjective, broadly defined term that needs a disclaimer "Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources and some may contradict all established definitions of antihero" is not a well-defined group or set. A list this broad and subjective is not a useful way to navigate. The main article could and should have a lengthier list of the best examples with reasons why they typify this character role, but this isn't the way to do it. If "having blue links" is inherently navigational, what isn't going to pass that? Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: If this list is arbitrary, then why is antihero a stock character as recognized by secondary sources? I am totally fine with requiring secondary sources for each instance in this case to avoid making arbitrary judgements. Daranios (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what your question is supposed to mean. Just because it's a real recognized concept doesn't mean it's our place to catalogue any time a critic or listicle compiler applies a term that has enormous breadth of application. Nothing else in List of stock characters is so broad, and most are able to have appropriate contextual recognition of significant examples – which actually provides better information to understand the idea than a sea of times a word has been used – like Valley_girl#In_popular_culture, White_hunter#Representations_in_literature_and_film, Reluctant_hero#Examples, without going unencyclopedially overboard. Many of the sources are arbitrary as well and lack depth and meaning. Just someone throwing around a broad term doesn't mean we need to compile that. [19] just says in a game review (used for both the game and literature) "I'm a sucker for the anti-hero, and the star of this game, Geralt, seems like he runs with the best (worst?) of them." But so what? [20] describes a protagonist who uses heroin, [21] comments on a giant gorilla that develops a soft spot, and [22] applies it to a hypocritical boss. It doesn't take hundreds of disparate examples to inform that this recognized stock character is a broad concept with poor definition, and there's no legitimate navigation between these. And [23] is just citogenesis that plagiarized Rooster Cogburn (character)... Reywas92^Talk 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is too broad to be useful or not is something that can be debated. But I still can't see that this should fail WP:LISTN because it should not be discussed as a group or set, when there are various secondary sources about them, some in book-length like this or this. Quality issues in specific instances would be solvable by editing. Daranios (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So use these books for antihero! A book subtitled "Figures and themes in modern European literature 1830–1980" and a collection of essays specifically on Alias, Supernatural, and The Vampire Diaries do not actually discuss this group of 500 vaguely defined characters across all media types. Reywas92^Talk 22:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of heroes. As the nom noted, this didn't qualify as a category either because the entries are inherently impossible to WP:VERIFY in a way that is WP:RELIABLE and consistent. At best, redirect to the notable topic, antihero. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, LISTN is met, and many of the above deletion rationales (e.g., the one immediately above this) don't cogently cite relevant policies--they name policies, but not accurately or appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jclemens. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consolidate substantially. There are four separate entries on the list for Catwoman alone. Is the focus on the character, or the depiction? There should be a single line for the earliest use of any given character in this vein, with all information on that character in that one place. BD2412 T 20:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wyner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. While he is a veteran actor, we can improve on his page. Do references from the Behind the Voice Actors page on him help in supporting his known roles? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. Hyke, Behind the Voice Actors is generated by user submissions and not considered a reliable source. –Ploni (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not true; per Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Situational "This can be used to shortcut verify the roles as long as the credit itself has a green check-mark that leads to an on-screen capture of the closing credit that confirms the role". So if a role is marked with a green check mark and accompanying screenshot, using BTVA is a perfectly fine alternative to just citing the credits. Link20XX (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify, I meant that it's not sufficient for establishing notability. –Ploni (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wyner simply hasn't attracted much notice. There are lots of veteran, unnotable actors. That's what IMDb is for. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is seriously weak and needs much improvement, but the individual has notable experience. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not show that WP:NACTOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see a long list of titles where he voiced a character, but none that appear to be significant roles, nor can I find additional sourcing with a Google search. Fails WP:GNG TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody has proven that the subject had a significant role in any of the listed names where they have voiced a character. TolWol56 (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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