Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (3rd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Hakkâri bus bombing}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Hakkâri bus bombing}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (3rd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (3rd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 09:29, 4 April 2024

< April 03 April 05 >

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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for the deletion of this article, and a reasonable argument by those opposed to deletion that the subject meets WP:LISTN. Concerns about the presentation of this list might be resolved by the proposal made in the discussion to move this article to Fatal dog attacks in the United States, and shift the focus from the mere list to the general phenomenon. I will file a WP:RM proposal after completing this closure. BD2412 T 02:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS many of the entries are sourced to dogsbites.org which isn't a reliable source (see:[1]) and I've noticed a few entries were not supported by source. This list is near impossible to maintain and review and has little encyclopaedic value. List of fatal dog attacks already exists and it will be easier to manage all the verifiability issues with a single list Traumnovelle (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add onto why this list should be removed in just the 2024 section I've had to rewrite 7/10 breed descriptions due to not being verified with the sources given. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And i will have to rewritte like 99% of the deaths because somebody removed alot of them. For exaple, 2021 has only 3 fatalities now! CComp542Version372 (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised the user above is a likely WP:SPA of User:CComp542Veraion19. Conyo14 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How'd you know? CComp542Veraion19 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — CComp542Veraion19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Intuition ;) Conyo14 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The project-space pages cited in the nomination mainly refer to article content and editorial decisions made therein. We should be assessing this from the notability standpoint, particularly using WP:NLIST; are there independent reliable sources available that cover these list entries as a group or set? Left guide (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this comment. I want to add that most of the entries with no reliable source where made by one user that started to edit a month ago. I kept an eye on it because I thought it might be "clever vandalism" to discredit this list. But then I thought maybe this person is new, so I did not intervene. And since it was mostly done one section it was easy to keep an eye on. Furthermore I think most of this cases can be co firmed by a reliable primary source, they are most likely not made up. Those entries should be improved not removed. Wikigrund (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has nothing to do with systemic bias as far as I can tell? Having a list of content related to one country doesn't mean it's systemic bias, we have tons of per-country lists. The second article you mentioned is not a list, so saying we currently have two articles on this topic isn't true.
    Content problems can be solved - if there are problem entries, remove them. The only grounds here to delete that have any standing would be indiscriminate, which I don't think this is, the topic of the list is notable - there seem to be sources that cover "fatal dog attacks in America" and list them, though with less detail. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "many entries are sourced to dogsbites.org" does not seem to be true. There's a few that are, but it's not "many". Just remove those or find alternative sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's over 65 entires that are cited to dogsbite.org, that's a substantial portion of the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I count 7 citations to dogsbite.org, plus the pre-2016 section. The rest of it seems fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The pre-2016 section is still part of the article and a large portion of it. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call it a large portion, 2020+2021 individually outsize it. It's also badly constructed (for some reason in reverse order? formatted quite differently for the rest of the page? arbitrarily starts at 2005?) If this is kept just remove it and start over IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And which specific sources cover "fatal dog attacks in America" as a group or set as required by WP:NLIST criteria? Left guide (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it depends on what you count as "as a set"? I feel like the NLIST guideline is vague on that. There are yearly listings of how many people died in dog attacks, counting breeds and often recounting specific high profile incidents, and studies of sets of fatal dog attacks over specific periods of time. I don't think we really need the victim details/news here maybe, so this could be cut down.
    I was more bothered by the rationale used. If this is deleted the parent list should also go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to the parent list going either as all the same issues apply really, but I want to see what the overall consensus is this time around for the list. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some sort of listing is probably warranted but the only quality the sources focus on seems to be breed - idk, maybe cut down to age/sex/dog breed/amount of dog instead of the news-style listings (the details of the case are not usually focused on)
    Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 - focuses on items from this period as a set (i think), breed information, that stuff
    Traumatic deaths from dog attacks in the United States - similar to the above
    non american ones (for broader list)
    Fatal dog attacks in Spain under a breed-specific legislation: A ten-year retrospective study
    Bitten or struck by dog: A rising number of fatalities in Europe, 1995–2016
    I feel like the news-type details should probably be cut down but some of the statistics here are probably worth keeping. Could be merged into something else though I guess? IDK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that breed identification has been demonstrated to be typically unreliable: [2] [3] [4] [5] I'm not sure that having breed data would be useful, out of the 10 articles in 2024 I had to modify 7 due to the breeds listed being unverified/original research and that's before getting into the unreliability of breed identification and that most news articles won't specify whether the breed was identified via registration, dna testing, or by visual identification. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about that. Your very first source there has Gary Patronek as a lead author, and he is affiliated with the National Canine Research Council, [6] a group that primarily exists to lobby for pitbulls. And given that 40% (if I recall correctly) of dogs that attack are previously known to the victims, it seems likely that they know what kind of a dog it is. Regardless, breed does correlate with attack severity, with pitbulls causing the greatest injury, and this is documented in medical journals [7], activist papers in veterinary journals don't make that go away. Geogene (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point of mentioning pit bulls? We're discussing whether breed identification is reliable. You call it an activist paper but their methodology is listed and the paper was peer reviewed, it's not invalid because the author has an affiliation with a group. There are still 3 other studies listed. Here's another source pointing out the same thing: [8]. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead author of that paper, Victoria L. Voith, is, not surprisingly, also affiliated with the National Canine Research Council. [9] Perhaps you will see the pattern now? Geogene (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being affiliated with the group doesn't make the study unreliable. Do all the studies have affiliations with that group or just those three? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being affiliated with this group indicates a certain bias toward whether or not the breed of vicious dogs is identifiable. That's a good reason to throw out your sources. And you haven't breathed a word about my source that says breed does correlate with attack severity -- and by implication that breed is determinable after an attack. Geogene (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the paper has a proper methodology and is peer reviewed it's conclusions can be accepted. An author may have a bias but the results will speak on their own.
    I only read the free preview for that study but it doesn't appear to even address the idea that breed identification may be unreliable so using it to conclude that breed identification is reliable is quite close to WP:SYNTH Traumnovelle (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly--it's a more recent and higher quality paper that doesn't even acknowledge the NCRC's position that breed identification might not be reliable. That's evidence that the "you can't identify breed" viewpoint clearly does not represent any kind of scientific consensus, and should probably be ignored. That has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH, by the way. No idea where you are getting this stuff from. Geogene (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The study isn't addressing the idea of if breed identification is reliable nor even mentioning it. It's a conclusion not mentioned in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it doesn't address that. Because nobody claims that breed identification is unreliable, except for a very specific small group of veterinarians affiliated with a very specific lobbying group. Geogene (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This study from 1965, whilst not about breed identification notes that mixed-breed dogs (which happen to make up a decent portion of the US dog population) look vastly different [10].
    There's also the other two studies which you haven't shown a link to said group.
    A bias with the authors doesn't render a study invalid anyhow, they must still adhere to standards and the study is peer reviewed. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those yearly listings might be a good start, are you able to bring them into this discussion? I don't have the time or inclination to wade through the 250+ references in the article, but I'd be willing to look at WP:THREE. Left guide (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a mistake, meant to link the existing list. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all the grounds given for deleting here apply to that as well, so if we delete this that should probably go as well. It is not systemic bias to have a list only applying to one country. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Animal, Events, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasons listed for deletion are insufficient. Cortador (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And your keep rationale is insufficient. If you think there are fundamental problems with the nomination, you should explain why. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of fatal dog attacks. The nom describe my rationale perfectly, but mainly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The population of the US is not dependent on the per capita regional fatalities of dogs in other countries. Conyo14 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That list should be deleted as well, for the same reasons as this one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that notion per reputable sources such as [11], [12], and [13]. Notable topic, just indiscriminate to have one country favored over others. Conyo14 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, primarily per WP:NOTNEWS. While the overall topic of dog attacks is certainly notable, a comprehensive (or not-so comprehensive even) list of every single one of them isn't. These are run of the mill news stories, however tragic. We also don't keep lists on every single other type of insert-unusual-cause-of-death, per WP:NOT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit the list topic is notable, but you still want to delete the page? Geogene (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In response to the stated Rationales for Deletion (RfDs)
- The WP:INDISCRIMINATE RfD is not supported because the discussion at the top of the list puts the list items in context with explanations referenced to independent sources, which are citations [1] - [4], consistent with the criteria in the description of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
- The article's introductory discussion also addresses a potential WP:NLIST RfD because "the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which are citations [1] - [4], and a stand-alone list related to a notable topic conforms with WP:LISTN. It is the topic of "Fatal Dog Attacks" rather than the individual incidents that qualify the list as "notable."
- The WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS RfD is not supported because the list acknowledges that its geographic restriction ("in the United States") and that it is incomplete, rather than being, for example, "list of dog attacks" that only lists attacks in the United States.
- The WP:RECENTISM RfD is not supported because the topic of fatal dog attacks is demonstrably an item of enduring interest, rather than a singular recent event.
- The WP:NOTNEWS RfD is not supported because 1) the article does not contain "routine" news reporting - "dog bites man" is routine, but "dog kills man" is a rare event can generate multiple news stories over several days, including analysis of dog & human interaction, as well as intense, emotional commentary; 2) the article is not a "news story" about one event or multiple events, rather, it is a stand-alone list of events under a notable topic.
There are certainly issues with some of the list items, e.g., the use of unreliable sources, but it seems to me those can be addressed individually by marking them for further editing and improvement rather than by deleting the entire list of otherwise reliably sourced information. Astro$01 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list meets the needed criteria for such lists. This kind of lists do exist for several countries. (Worldwide with separate linked pages for USA, UK, Austria, Germany, Canada, Spain). I do not think it is a good idea to merge them. I think it is better to have individual pages since different countries have different laws and focal points.
For example Austria did have law changes after almost every fatal and also nearly fatal incident. (German version of the page is longer). Also this often was accompanied by week-long public discussions. The impact on society and the federal states is quite interesting.
I started to edit the USA-list because I was reading the cases anyway, so I thought I add the missing ones to Wikipedia. I also made changes and put the states at the beginning to make it sortable or searchable by state.
Although the USA are not my main interrest (I am focused on dog laws, animal welfare and dog bite injuries). This lists help me to search for information or cases I need.
I try to improve the page. In the future I want to add more on the legal part, but since I am not local sometimes I can't access the archives or even the news pages.
I think it is good to keep a short description of each case. At least the state it happened in and information if it was a stray dog, loose dog, family dog and what the legal consequences for the owners were. Or if local laws on keeping animals have been changed due to the fatalities.
I feel some people want this lists deleted because they just don't like it (5th delete request). There seems to be some hyperfocus on the "dog type" category. But since there are a lot of people watching this page it is not too hard to keep the information accurate.
Also I noticed that some users delete sources (which is ok if they are blacklisted or unreliable) but instead of adding a reliable source (that is available), they delete the verifyable content like the "dog type" or they delete the whole entry. I think they are just looking for excuses to delete information. Wikigrund (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 'Fatal dog attacks' is a subject of broad interest which has earned significant historic as well as ongoing news coverage and study. Fatal dog attacks have been a public safety concern for governments and society from the local level to entire countries. The subject itself easily passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:LISTN, and the list entries are well cited with reliable sources.

Despite multiple prior attempts to remove this article, it has remained up since it was created in 2009 precisely because it satisfies the key criteria for a standalone list article in Wikipedia. For example, the closing statement for the first two AfDs, in 2010 and in 2019, declared the subject notable. Topics do not lose their notability status.

Similar collections of fatal dog attack incidents have been compiled and published, and used for the last 40 to 50 years to analyze trends in attacks—e.g., by dog breed or ownership, or by victim age and sex, [17], to propose solutions for public safety or public education, [18] and generally to determine what can be done about the risks [19] of an animal species kept by more than 40% [20] of American households.

The topic is of interest to lawmakers, the insurance industry, the medical establishment, lawyers, landlords, and many other sectors of society—anywhere incidents and trends are tabulated and discussed—and each of these factions has published on the topic.

Wikipedia should reflect, rather than downplay, society's participation in this public interest topic. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here because the article isn't covering a single event. Nor are fatal events "routine" news, despite the increase in fatalities over the years.

There are ongoing debates in the public narrative of whether aggressive behaviors in canines are heritable, i.e., an attribute of a breed, and there have been studies published supporting each side of the debate.

Some editors want to omit breed information that has been reported by reliable sources as if it is "not accurate enough"—per their own original research or point of view on the matter. Wikipedia guidelines do not require such an exceptionally detailed and critical examination of RS data points.

Meanwhile, because the public is interested and in need of good information, the media continues to report on breeds in attack events, allowing researchers to evaluate fatal dog attack data, to include the breeds of dogs involved in their data sets, and to publish their findings. Similarly, there is no reason to omit breed information in this Wikipedia article. Note, however, that the decision to include or exclude breed is a content issue, and not an article deletion matter, and thus is not relevant in the weighing of this AfD.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like previous AFDs, I don't see a consensus here yet. As Geogene points out, it doesn't matter if there are no similar articles for other countries, we have multiple country-specific lists. And I think it is important not to get lost in the weeds and argue about whether or not the breed of dog should be included and verified. What's essential is whether or not this article satisfies WP:NLIST and whether there are sources that establish notability of this subject. Don't get distracted by elements that can be improved through editing and focus on the big picture of whether or not this article is suitable for the project, according to our policies and standards of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of fatal dog attacks, along with serious dog bite injuries, are of specific interest to pediatric trauma surgeons, as shown in the following six medical journal articles; note that providing breed, location, and demographic data is particularly useful.

Life-threatening dog attacks: A devastating combination of penetrating and blunt injuries, Journal of Pediatric Surgery
  • Calkins, Casey M.; Bensard, Denis D.; Partrick, David A.; Karrer, Frederick M. (2001-08-01). "Life-threatening dog attacks: A devastating combination of penetrating and blunt injuries". Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 36 (8): 1115–1117. doi:10.1053/jpsu.2001.25670. PMID 11479838. Retrieved 2024-03-29.
Essig 2019 study, "Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis"
  • Essig, Garth F.; Sheehan, Cameron; Rikhi, Shefali; Elmaraghy, Charles A.; Christophel, J. Jared (2019). "Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis". International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 117: 182–188. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.11.028. ISSN 1872-8464. PMID 30579079.
Golinko's 2016 study, "Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution" Short Reference: [1]
  • Golinko, Michael; Arslanian, Brian; Williams, Joseph (2016-07-10). "Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution". Clinical Pediatrics. 56. doi:10.1177/0009922816657153.
O'Brien et al., 2015 study, "Dog bites of the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment" Short Reference: [2]
  • O'Brien, Daniel C.; Andre, Tyler B.; Robinson, Aaron D.; Squires, Lane D.; Tollefson, Travis T. (2015). "Dog bites of the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment". American Journal of Otolaryngology. 36 (1): 32–38. doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2014.09.001. ISSN 1532-818X. PMID 25311183.
Bini's 2011 study, "Mortality, mauling, and maiming by vicious dogs", Annals of Surgery Short Reference: [3]
Short Reference: [4] Kaye et al.'s 2009 study, "Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries: A 5-Year Review of the Experience at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia"
Veritas Aeterna (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether List of fatal dog attacks is a notable subject, it's whether specifically only the United States deserves rational notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If List of fatal dog attacks is notable, then so is this per WP:SUMMARY (and common sense): "Long stand-alone lists may be split alphanumerically or chronologically or in another way that simplifies maintenance without regard to individual notability of the subsections." -- Jfhutson (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was a similar deletion discussion about List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom in 2021.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom
The result was keep. Wikigrund (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this page should be deleted. It contributes to misinformation of breeds, which can feed into Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) as well as quantified analysis. Furthermore, it is quite targeted towards breeds of a certain stature/strength as smaller dogs such as Chihuahuas and small terriers are highly unlikely to cause death of an individual, however, score much worse on temperament tests and statistically do cause more injuries to people and other dogs. Any research/statistics should be qualitative and provide a complete statistical representation. This, however, is not realistically feasible. Given the article is both incomplete and inaccurate data, it should be removed. 2404:440C:2A5F:8000:FC00:6ED1:C82F:5245 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article not included on Wikipedia pages of breeds other than Pitbulls? This in itself highlights the biased and incomplete nature of the article and reporting within it. 2404:440C:2A5F:8000:FC00:6ED1:C82F:5245 (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read a paper today, "Extensive and mutilating craniofacial trauma involving defleshing and decapitation: unusual features of fatal dog attacks in the young" in American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, by Tsokos et al., 2007, that said, “Pit bull–type” dogs refers to a variety of breeds including the bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, the American pit bull terrier, and the American Staffordshire terrier. These dogs seem to be a particular problem compared with other breeds as they tend not to make threatening gestures, such as snarling or baring of teeth, prior to attacking and so there may be no warning of impending aggressive behavior. Pit bulls also take multiple bites and have greater jaw pressures than most other dogs, reaching 1800 pounds per square inch. Once attached, they also continue to grind their premolars and molars into tissues while holding on with their canine teeth causing greater amounts of soft-tissue.... (and do not Google that paper lightly, there are reasons I'm not linking to it directly here) I don't see why Wikipedia owes any duty to censor reliably sourced information about specific types of dog that some peer reviewed journal papers consider problematic in the interest of "righting great wrongs". I also don't think it's appropriate to suggest that Wikipedia should take a political stance on Breed-Specific Legislation, or for Wikipedia to self-censor for that reason. Geogene (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you said and wanted to add that the column says "dog type" not "dog breed confirmed by DNA".
I try to be as accurate as possibel, so if a Belgian Shepherd fatally bit someone I add the variety into the column (Groenendael, Tervuren, Malinois or Laekenois) if mentioned in the source. Same with pit bulls, I try to go into details if possible.
Some seem to think this is a "List of fatal dog breeds", NO it is a list of fatal dog attacks which also includes information about the dog. But it also includes information about the year it happend, the state, the age and sex of the victim, the circumstances, the injuries, the relationship with the dog, the dogs name, if the dog was mistreated and if the dog was euthanized and more. Why should all this be deleted if researches look for such information? Wikigrund (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The bulk of the article is cited to secondary sources and, therefore, is not original research. Can you please provide specific examples of content that you believe editors have created? Yes, the article is incomplete/missing years but that is not a reason to delete it. As in, Wikipedia is a process and has no deadline. Also, including breeds that have fatally attcked and excluding those breeds (i.e.smaller dog breeds) that have not killed is not bias, but sticking to the subject of the article. This article is about fatal attacks, not any attack or breed temperments. Bias would be if someone went through the article and removed all references to a specific breed or specifically left out a breed that has fatally attacked. You provide no evidence of actual bias, just your personal diagreement with the article's content. Rublamb (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some now fixed examples: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Traumnovelle (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not sufficient that the sources are somehow secondary, which I would contest in any case: it's the whole collecting procedure in the first place. You say that "if researches look for such information", but it matters whether it's a good sample if it is to be used for data. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are adequate reliable secondary sources on this topic to prove its notability and general interest. I agree that the article needs work and that not all of its content is adequately sourced. That is why tags exist (see WP:ATD-T) However, the decision to delete or keep an article is not based on its current condition but on whether or not there are enough potential sources to meet the general guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia and to improve its content. When searching Newspapers.com for "dog bit death", I got 81 results. Even if we limited this article to incidents with national coverage or deaths that received out-of-area coverage or coverage in major newspapers, there are more than enough sources to meet notability. For example, my search for "dog bite death USA" in the Washington Post yielded more than 3,000 hits. Even though many of those are false hits, only five of those potential sources need to be usable for this article to soundly meet notability. I disagree with the recommendation to merge this because of its length and potential to get even longer. It is common practice for long lists that cover the world or the entire United States to be split into smaller chunks, such as by country or by state. There are several reasons behind this practice, one being that not all Wikipedia users and editors have devices that can deal with that much data. Also, it is hard to keep the balance between all components of a worldwide article if a country like the United States seems overrepresented because it has more new coverage. Instead, it is a better practice to summarize the US in the world list, and the US have as much coverage warranted by events and sources. Rublamb (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a fairly weak keep for me, because I'm not particularly enthusiastic about it, but it seems to me that we use list pages for topics like this. We have other, similar list pages in Category:Lists of fatal dog attacks by country, and I see no reason why a US list would be more or less problematic than the others. As demonstrated by other editors above, there is adequate sourcing for a significant number (even if, perhaps, not all) of the individual entries, and there is adequate sourcing to define the topic as a whole. The list is long enough that there isn't a good reason for a merge, and I'm not seeing any policy problems with defining it by having been in the US. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fatal dog attacks in the United States and drop the list. Been mulling this one over a few days reading over the comments, and so far I haven't seen anything would have convinced me to close this list as keep from a WP:PAG perspective as someone uninvolved. I'm a mixed bag on the entirety of the article, but I do agree with others mentioning WP:INDISCRIMINATE that there is a tension here in terms of WP:NLIST that is not going away by just keeping the list. I haven't seen a comment here really showing that NLIST is actually satisfied. That said, and this is a key distinction I've noticed some keep !votes have blurred, is that the general topic of fatal dog attacks, or even dog attacks in the US is notable. That distinction should be looked at more closely in !votes at the close. Instead of a list article, a regular article on the subject using what sources summarize instead of us editors indiscriminately grabbing from headlines for a list would be very valid from a policy perspective. Let the secondary sources give an overview of frequency, breeds, victim demographics, etc. as the intro to the current list already does rather than keep trying to use a list format. KoA (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding on so I'm not re-editing my original post again, but as I read over the meat many of the keeps, they're really making a case not for having a list article, but rather for covering the subject of dog attacks in general. That's very different than justifying having a list article, so there is some confounding going on with this AfD due to the current target basically having: 1. a start (or more than just that) of an article, 2. a list. Wires shouldn't be crossed between the current status of article text that could be split off and the list itself at least for assessing list notability. That at least in part looks like what has caused issues in assessing this with the multiple AfD noms over time, so I think the eventual closer will have some heavier lifting than normal to sort through the keep !votes carefully. KoA (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting point, that the topic may be better suited to a regular article than to a list page. I'm inclined to agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I suspect your recommedation is to move the article, rather than merging, as the article you suggest merging with only exists as a redirect. The narrative lede to the list is appropriate for FL class articles. A long lede does not mean that aarticle should not be a list. In this case, there is an existing precident for articles that are titled "List of fatal dog attacks in (country)". Therefore, it makes more sense to leave the existing title and format so that Wikipedia users can easily find information for various countires. In addition, the table format gives users the ability to search and sort data — something that is not possible in a narrative article. I suggest expanding the columns in the tables so the list can be sorted by age, and gender, etc., increasing the ways the data can be accessed. I was going to do this when I did a quick copy edit, but decided to wait for the outcome of this discussion. Rublamb (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Functionally you could call it a move, but I put it as merge/redirect because that link already exists and that's part of the existing AfD framework options. That and it it would involve content changes.
    As for the rest, the existing narrative doesn't matter for notability discussion, and the rest is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that doesn't really matter in terms of policy and guideline. The reality is that the notability lies with the subject itself as a main article, not a list. KoA (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: MOS says "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles." They just use a different format to convey information. There does not need to be what you call a "main article" to support a list article. In the case of an article about a university, there might be a main article and related lists articles (alumni, sports, Greek letter organizations, campus buildings, etc.) because the combined content is too long for one article. But in this instance, the article in question is the main article. According to WP Lists, a lede is an important part of the best list articles that achieve FA class. The lede of this article is on topic and correctly provides context for this list; thus, it should be part of the notability discussion. @KoA, what you are proposing is an article name change/move and a format change which is different from an AfD discussion. That being said, it looks like you think topic meets or can meet notability, and that the article should be retained with a name and format to be determined at a later date? Rublamb (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's mostly irrelevant for this discussion, and I'd suggest reading WP:NNC. No one is talking about there needing to be a main article to support a list article. We don't create lists for every regular article either. Not every topic that satisfies WP:N will satisfy WP:NLIST.
    The concept of a list for this topic just doesn't have notability, but the overall subject outside of the list aspect does, and those are two different things. That's why I mentioned in keep !votes such as yours that if I was closing instead of deciding to comment, your comments would have weighed against a straight keep because of that confounding in justification between list notability and just regular topic notability. That's also why I came here to suggest swapping the redirect targets as a solution instead of just another no-consensus close. We do article name changes, redirects, merges, etc. at AfD all the time, and that actually would help take care of the list notability issue that keeps bringing this back to AfD. KoA (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @KoA: Sorry if I misunderstood your concern. I would direct you to WP:LISTN which says "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. ...notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. 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." Clearly, changing the name makes no difference with regards to determining notablity. And, if the topic is notable, so is its related list. Rublamb (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeatedly mentioned issues with WP:NLIST as why this keeps coming back to AfD, so I'm very familiar with the guideline I've been discussing the whole time. As I already said repeatedly, this is not a notable list topic per that very guideline, but the general topic is. There aren't sets of lists establishing notability beyond the general topic discussion. What you're suggesting would be similar coming to a Bombay cat AfD and saying cats are notable, so keep. List topics don't automatically WP:INHERIT notability from the general topic, it's the focus on lists in sources that does that here. List topics are a subset of a general topic when lists within become notable, which is why NLIST discusses "list topics" and assessing those groupings as a whole.
    Much of what you're bring up such as the entirety of lists in sources isn't at issue here and is not addressing the central question for this AfD on notability of the list topic at hand. The question for this AfD is centered on the notability of lists in this subject, not the broader subject of dog attacks. If people can't handle that distinction, us outside editors aren't going to be able to help much in cutting through the issue that's clearly not going away.
    At the end of the day, just having the article move to dealing with the subject in prose alleviates the NLIST issues that continually bring this to AfD, and it also allows for WP:NOTEWORTHY instances or case studies to be discussed in the article or even put in tables as opposed to an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that has been a concern here too. The list question here is just causing too many WP:PAG issues that are much easier to deal with if the article is allowed to be a general article instead of a list. KoA (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As to the suggestion to merge into Fatal dog attacks in the United States, please note that the page was previously named that, and used to have a significant amount of non-list prose content. The article was systematically stripped of non-list content and finally renamed to "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" when all but the barest lead prose had been removed. To illustrate: a long discussion in April 2019 discussed breaking up the article into multiple smaller subjects or related subjects; an edit on September 25, 2019 removed all the studies; an edit on October 31, 2019 removed prose content and nineteen sources; a December 2019 discussion found consensus to rename; and on January 13, 2020‎ it was renamed to be List of fatal dog attacks in the United States.

Thus, the original single article—this article—had been fractured into multiple articles including "Fatal dog attacks", "List of fatal dog attacks", and several country break out articles.

The key point is that this article used to have prose information that gave it weight and the stamp of approval for standalone notability. Due to size constraints—and the subsequent splitting/fracturing—it should maintain its notability due to its alliance with the other articles in the series, if not simply because it fulfills the informational purpose of lists as mentioned in NLIST. NLIST discusses creating stand-alone lists but does not address lists when they are split—in this case with the prose content being moved elsewhere, leaving the list standing alone.

If you want to "merge" something, then put some of the USA prose content back into "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" from "Fatal dog attacks", whether it remains named "List of" or not. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add some guideline support, WP:SUMMARY says, "Long stand-alone lists may be split alphanumerically or chronologically or in another way that simplifies maintenance without regard to individual notability of the subsections." -- Jfhutson (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plenty of sources (and common sense) supporting WP:NLIST. Re WP:NOTNEWS, the topic "fatal dog attacks in the US" has enduring notability, though each one of these attacks do not. Similarly, WP:ROUTINE is about the notability of individual events, and no one is arguing any of these attacks have notability. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about putting things in context, and this article does a great job of putting the list of dog attacks in context with high-quality sources. --Jfhutson (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Dog bites man isn't news. Man bites dog IS news. Dog kills person is also news.
If I want to know about attacks by animals, where will I find it in Wikipedia? Statistics just tell me that 30 to 50 people are killed each year. I want more than that. The last paragraph of fatal dog attacks says "The author also rues the lack of "comprehensive surveillance" of dog bite related fatalities."
I'm not going to quote MOS, but on this one I am an inclusionist. Where else, other than Wikipedia, will researchers go for information about dog attacks? A list, with sources, is sufficient. The only discussion should be which article is appropriate for that information. Humpster (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>If I want to know about attacks by animals, where will I find it in Wikipedia
Dog bite.
>Where else, other than Wikipedia, will researchers go for information about dog attacks?
Hopefully literally anywhere else - Wikipedia is a horrible place for researchers to find information, especially in long indiscriminate lists that have been targetted by a third party activist group. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did politics play a role in your nominating this article? An IP made some political commentary above, and it is odd that that this article has been to AfD five times. Geogene (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know about the existence of said group until after the notice was added to it. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very odd. It seems that someone really wants to suppress this kind of data. The only organization I can think that would want to do that would be Animal Farm Foundation or its subsidiary the National Canine Research Council. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, if you truely think I have some connection to a lobbyist group then you should be bringing it up in the appropriate channels. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Golinko, Arslanian & Williams 2016.
  2. ^ O'Brien et al. 2015.
  3. ^ Bini et al. 2011.
  4. ^ Kaye, Belz & Kirschner 2009.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The phenomenon of fatal dog attacks is a notable subject... which is why we already have a whole article on that subject. That article includes a large section on the US that covers this subject better than this article does, without the indiscriminate content and low quality sources. The meat of this page is a thoroughly indiscriminate list of non-notable incidents involving non-notable people sourced to news stories of individual incidents, created and predominantly written by a couple WP:SPAs focused on anti-pitbull advocacy and dog attacks. The list doesn't merit a separate article from the notable topic per WP:NOPAGE, and more importantly this is a WP:NOT issue. We're indiscriminately hosting a massive list that effectively reproduces the lists available on advocacy websites. Any argument based just on notability isn't addressing the issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Since others have also said this article is flawed because of editor bias, I decided to take a look as a neutral editor who does a lot of work with lists. Hidden in the weeds, there were many notable fatalities, meaning they had national/out-of-local area coverage or were included in major newspapers or magazines. A challenge is a lack of guidelines for inclusion in the list. I have proposal guidelines on the article's TalkPage which is pending adoption. For the sake of the AfD discussion, I went ahead and made the first pass at removing fatalities that only had local coverage. I believe this addresses most of your concerns. I also did a review of the NYT archives, adding some content from the 19th and 20th centuries, both for balance and to show that sources exist to continue expanding the article. Rublamb (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This misses the point. Wikipedia has an awful lot of editors focused on dog attacks and pitbulls in particular. The design of a page which covers not just the subject of fatal dog attacks but attempts to include as many entries as possible is where the NPOV exists. Whether we call it a WP:POVFORK or just bending our typical treatment of lists to accommodate an exhaustive list of local events (rather than notable examples) is an NPOV problem. That it comes from editors with a clear POV and single focus on this project is simply unsurprising rather than a cause to delete in its own right. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think that's accurate re "our typical treatment of lists." We have lists of notable things, and we have lists of things whether notable or not with clear inclusion criteria. I don't know how to prove it without being accused of OTHERSTUFF, but here are some examples: Category:Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States by year, Category:Lists of people executed in the United States, Category:Lists of libraries in the United States. -- JFHutson (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue is that it lists breed. Which attracts the advocates. I doubt there would be much interest updating that list if breed was not included. If people want to keep a list, a suggestion would be to remove the breed from the list. There are so many studies out there that show breed is not reliably determined by looks, so I don't see a reasonable argument for keeping breed listed. News are more than reliable in reporting incidents, but they shouldn't be relied upon reporting the breed, unless a genetic test was performed, which is in very rare instances. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The user Rhododentrites thinks this list reproduces the lists available on advocacy websites. I strongly disagree.
    - On Wikipedia everyone can add a fatality, so we can add fatalities those websites might leave out. Since there are many different editors, one must try to be accurate and avoid biased writing. That is a good thing and distinguishes this list from those websites. No one complained about me adding the Labrador who was involved in the death of a cyclist who drove into the dog. (List of fatal dog attacks in Germany)
    -I find the point of notability interesting. Because in countries with very few fatal dog attacks, every attack logically leads to debates. Austria has very strict animal welfare rules and dog laws, there are hardly any fatal incidents involving humans. Interestingly, findings from international studies are also reflected in Austria, despite the fact that fatal attacks are so rare. More than 70% of severe injuries and deaths are caused by Rottweilers and Pit bull type dogs, closely followed by German Shepherds. The lists reflect the statistics and are, in my opinion, not biased. Other factors like the age of the victims and the circumstances are also similar and interesting to compare with other countries.
    -The USA has a shockingly high number of fatal dog attacks, so a selection might makes sense (I don't know what the rules are and how long a article is allowed to be), but it does have some pitfalls. Some cases get more coverage (if the victim is a child etc. or the attack resulted in extreme injuries). I would prefer to add every case available if this is possible. Even the strange cases where a dog was involved and did nothing wrong. (Like List of unusual death)
    - Maybe criteria for notability of the cases and attacks should be that they were fatal in the end and involved dogs. No matter the news coverage, circumstances or dog type etc. There are so much more dog attacks that were nearly fatal, so a fatal one is notable in my opinion.
    - If we decide to only add fatalities with national or even international coverage we have to check every fatality, because I tend to add local newspapers as a source if possible, which does not mean there was no national or international coverage (since I find some cases from the US in German newspapers).
    - I think information researchers are looking for includes: age, sex, type of injury, state, county, legal situation, convictions, circumstances, dog type, animal welfare (stray dogs, dog fighting issues). It would be good to focus on getting all that information in, instead of hyperfocusing on the "dog type" and delete delete delete. Information about the dog breed or type can be important but it is only one factor. It does not have to be perfect either, because if I look at cases I do further research anyway. Wikigrund (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (yet another WP:SPA). To some of the content: casting an even wider net than the advocacy sites is not a good thing, and regarding Maybe criteria for notability of the cases and attacks should be that they were fatal in the end and involved dogs - notability on Wikipedia means WP:N. It's typically about having enough coverage for a wide audience and over a period of time for a Wikipedia article. Most lists on Wikipedia that constitute lists of examples are lists of notable examples. Some lists aim to be exhaustive (discographies, lists of presidents of a particular country, lists of cars made by Audi, etc.). Fatal dog attacks is not one such list where I think we should aim to be exhaustive. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: My point exactly. This was my quick pass of trimming the content to notable attacks, since reverted. Rublamb (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just pointing out that Rhododendrites' mention of WP:NOPAGE really does drive home the WP:PAG argument for at least not keeping a list page. Above in my !vote I mentioned essentially just redirecting/merging to fatal dog attacks or having a US article specifically, especially in terms of Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article. . . A list isn't needed for this topic and has only been causing problems with the tensions it causes with WP:NLIST. Instead, let secondary sources do the broad-level summarizing for us in a regular article where we aren't forced into having a list, but still have the option for a focused one if needed in that article.
    At the end of the day, WP:CONSENSUS isn't a majority vote, but what best addresses our WP:PAG. Most keep votes aren't addressing the underlying policy or guideline issues, often just declaring the topic is notable while confounding the actual topics between list notability and general topic notability. There are solutions being proposed whether it's in the merge/redirect or delete comments, but closing this as keep or no consensus would mean the underlying problems would still remain and just end up back here at a later date. It does look like these AfDs get derailed by WP:ISNOT violations claiming we need to provide this data for researchers, etc. too. This is going to be a mess for a closer to sort through and weight comments, but this does seem like a case where if notability of the list topic is not established after this many AfDs, that's something the closer should be weighing in on. KoA (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the key guideline here is NLIST, and that that has already been addressed above. I agree that the subject is notable enough to have a standalone article at Fatal dog attacks in the United States, however, creating that article does not require a merge or deletion of this list article. Arguing that this article should be deleted without consensus just because some people keep nominating it, and are perhaps likely to nominate it again, is not in at all in accordance with the PAGs that this post repeatedly appeals to. If anything, continuing to propose deletion for an article that has been to AfD four times already is disruptive behavior that should not be encouraged. As for "researchers", the entire point of Wikipedia is to spread free knowledge. Geogene (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the responses agreeing to merge or delete, this is not disruptive behavior. Remember that the first AfD was no consensus and the 2014 version was delete. Also, the point of Wikipedia is to spread reliable knowledge, not any knowledge. This is why we have WP:RSN, to discuss what is and isn't a reliable source. Conyo14 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the content in this article is reliably sourced. If you dispute that, then the correct procedure to remedy that is on the article's talk page, not an AfD. Watching this AfD devolve into complaints about other editors allegedly being SPAs and, really, trying to bring any policy into it other than NLIST shows that there is no coherent delete argument here. Geogene (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to strongarm the framing of discussion into the only guideline you think should apply, as though we don't routinely delete for a variety of other guideline-based reasons (not to mention policy-based reasons), and pointing fingers about "coherence" and "devolving" discussion because it doesn't meet your own personal framing is not helpful. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Geogene's comments and can see no point in removing useful data, especially when there are similar lists for fatal shark attacks, fatal bear attacks, fatal snake bites, and for mass shootings. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two AfDs of the main page were closed with no consensus and the 2010 was closed with keep.
    Quote: "The result was keep. The overall concept of humans being killed by dogs is notable, the individual entries on the list of course need to be properly sourced but do not need to be notable in and of themselves."
    I do agree with the user Geogene that nominating again and again and again is disruptive behavior. The user who made the AfD did'nt even bother to bring some of the solveable issues up on the talk page. Instead they went straight for AfD because: "[..] I want to see what the overall consensus is this time around for the list." Wikigrund (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The result of the first RfD was "keep." Some folks seem unable to accept that so they return every few years to see if they can enough votes to delete it. I say, "votes" because the arguments haven't changed much in 14 years. Astro$01 (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion on whether clearer selection criteria would ameliorate the concerns about INDISCRIMINATE and NOTNEWS would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the proposed selection criteria by Rublamb would alleviate most of my concerns, currently the discussion about that is ongoing on the article talk page. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just responding after the relist comment, but WP:LISTN issues that keep bringing this back to AfD are not due to list selection criteria, so that would not address the underlying issue of notability of the list topic. Either we fix the problem by doing away with the list article format and going to a "normal" article or else the issues persist and we're back here again after some time to try to tackle the underlying issues yet again. KoA (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I don't find the WP:LISTN issues that you mention. There seems to be agreement that the topic is notable. The lede provides sources that discuss the topic in general and summarizes fatal attacks. The list follows with notable examples with significant coverage. Thus, topic is notable, the group is notable, and the citted examples are notable. So how does this fail WP:LISTN? Rublamb (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you indent, that lets us know it's a response. No need for boldtext. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the WP:LISTN issues that you mention. And that's the underlying problem here that editors are not engaging with the LISTN issues and just keep broadly insisting the topic is notable. Denialism about that is not helpful here if any of us outside editors are going to be helpful in addressing the underlying problems at the article. That's already been addressed above though ad nauseum, so please be mindful of WP:BADGERING at this point.
Discussions like these are WP:NOTAVOTE when it comes to measuring consensus. When issues like this are found and keep !votes just insist it's notable (or won't differentiate the differences between general notability and lists), those comments are typically weighed very little when it comes to assessing WP:CONSENSUS. It's usually those actively working to fix the underlying issues this doesn't end up back at AfD yet again, not tangents like the IP comments just pasted below. KoA (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that other editors won't engage on WP:LISTN issues; it is that we disagree that there is a WP:LISTN issue in the first place.
It seems to me the "there is no issue" argument is based on a plain reading of the WP:LISTN criteria, namely that the topic of fatal dog attacks "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
The list introduction includes citations on the topic from independent, reliable sources, which satisfies the WP:LISTN criteria. QED. Astro$01 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following were posted to the talk page. I am reposting here because it appears these editors meant to participate in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rublamb (talk • contribs)
Agreed. It is most likely a pit bull fanatic who wants to have this useful article deleted. Please keep it up! 2603:6011:8CF0:5CF0:C19D:B680:8D41:66 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.
  • This comprehensive compilation should not be erased from public access. I just saw that someone attempts to get this article removed from Wikipedia.This is a comprehensive list of all serious incidents in human/dog interactions in the US and lists the breeds involved. It is well documented and referenced, so there is no justifiable reason to remove it. Wanderwonders (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.
  • Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.
  • Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.
These are all very textbook arugments to avoid in deletion discussions or flat out WP:ISNOT policy violations, but it does illustrate the kind of "padding" I was seeing in the AfD back when I was debating on closing the AfD vs. looking for alternative solutions. KoA (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT The responses above are exactly why my call for deletion was and is based primarily on WP:NOR. If this is supposed to be used as raw data about the subject— and these responses make clear that plenty will read it that way— readers should be getting it from reputable researchers with a published methodology, not a range of random WP authors of unknown ability, interest, and intent. This is a collection of primary data, and we should be reporting on the analysis of it, or rather, on an analysis of data collected by actual statisticians and social analysts. Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The same argument could be made about a great deal of Wikipedia--that it consists of random facts pulled together by various editors of unknown ability, interest, and intent. We have to trust the system of editors reviewing and monitoring other editors and remember that all are welcome to participate. I have issues with the suggestion that we should delete content to control how someone might use it. That really goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. As it currently stands, this article provides a general historical overview of notable fatal dog attacks. Its information is from reliable sources, including notable newspapers, magazines, and news outlets. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD says, "While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source..." In addition, WP:PRIMARY says, "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" and "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Thus, using reliable newspapers and magazines as sources for basic facts (who, what, when, where) is within the scope of allowable use, especially considering that the article's lede uses secondary sources to discuss the importance of the data and the conclusions drawn from the data. Rublamb (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rhododendrites and KoA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Keep but remove breed. There are several studies, some listed here[26][27][28], that have determined breed identification by visual inspection to be unreliable. News report what Animal Control states, and if its known their staff can't reliably determine breed, then the news is just reporting unreliable information too. There really isn't an argument for keeping data on Wikipedia that is already known to be unreliable, so I would say to either delete it, or remove breed from it and keeping a list of incidents with no breed listed. The exception, would be where DNA tests were done, but those are in the minority. This would also detract from users who go there for advocacy on either side. Removing inaccurate information and reducing POV is a double-win for Wikipedia. Also will sign myself as an SPA for disclosure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC) — Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If a reliable source, e.g., a newspaper article says the breed is a Great Dane, then a Wikipedia article should be able to say it is a Great Dane. Astro$01 (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context matters when evaluating sources. Not just the source, but to the specific facts and not just the source, per WP:RS. One reasonable mind can argue that, given the context surrounding breed identification reliability, media outlets relying on visual breed identification are reporting on unreliable information. At least one news report disclosed this within their reporting when using breed identification as well.Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the battle here appears to relate to pit bull lovers or haters. As an editor who has no bias in the dog breed issue, I have looked at every included attack and its source. In most of these cases, the source for the breed info appears to be the dog's owner, not animal control. In many cases, forensic work was done on the dog. In other cases, the sources indicate that the breed is unknown. The sources you provide relate to shelter workers, not pet owners or even animal control. But that really doesn't matter. As @Astro$01 suggests, the cited sources are considered reliable. Applying the articles you mention to discredit those reliable sources, would be original research, especially since the articles you want to introduce are not about fatal dog attacks or news reporting. Rublamb (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I honestly don't have the time to look at every incident and every source. However, I did do a random sample containing the first 2 attacks in a year going back to 2005. That is when the genome mapping of dogs was complete, so automatically, pre-2005 isn't in dispute for DNA analysis. Of the ones inspected, All did not mention DNA testing being performed, in fact it was common for them to just say "identified". Only one reference to DNA was one news stating a disclaimer that its been found that identifying a dog without DNA analysis is unreliable, so kudos for responsible journalism there. Of the attacks, about 22/24 of the attacks the owner of the attack was known, but few eluded to the family identifying the breed. Mainly a neighbor giving a description, firefighter, or animal services. Given the unreliability of visual breed identification and the rampant use of it within this article, I really don't see an argument for keeping breed in it, unless its to keep a list of unreliable data.
There is also the issue with this being used for advocacy, can you ensure that the list is not inherently biased given the attention this list draws by advocacy groups? There is an incentive to add "pit bulls" to the list, but not much other dog attacks by editors interested in this wiki article. For example, just this last year there has already been a dog attack[29] omitted from this article, and it just so happens to not be identified as a "pit bull". However, there has not been one dog attack labeled as a "pit bull" omitted from this list. This page is unreliable in so many ways I honestly feel like just removing it now. A incomplete list, at best, gives readers an unreliable picture. At worst, it serves a propaganda for editors with an agenda.Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table says "dog type" and not "dog breed confirmed by DNA analysis". The linked Wikipedia articles clearly explain what a Husky type is, for example, and that breeds and crossbreeds are included. It is also explained in the article "Pitt bull" which is always linked in every fatality.  The dog type column can also contain a description such as stray dog, guard dog, mixed breed, unknown or large dog if no more information is known.
Even people with little knowledge of dogs can distinguish between these dog types. Wikigrund (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion may be that people with little knowledge of dogs can. However, it runs counter to the many studies that exist that show that even with knowledge of dogs cannot reliably determine a breed. Do you have a study to back up your beliefs, if so I am a nerd for this topic and would appreciate reading it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency#2010. Rough consensus that this event should not remain as a standalone article due to its inability to meet the relevant inclusion criteria. EC editors may choose to shuffle around content as necessary. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Hakkâri bus bombing

2010 Hakkâri bus bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

4 of the 5 sources are from September 2010 when this event occured. No WP:LASTING effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is part of the Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be merged/redirected to this article? LibStar (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could but I think it would be better on its own. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In genuine good faith (not asking rhetorically, but as a serious question), what makes you think this topic needs its own article rather than being mentioned in the insurgency article? I have no preference towards keep or delete myself at the moment - I'm just curious as to your rationale in saying this. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation is needed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency#2010. The article is well-sourced, but not notable on its own. Would be a waste to delete without expanding an already existing notable article. Topic also lacks sustained coverage. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 15:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Owen× ☎ 22:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

AfDs for this article:
Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted 3 1/2 years ago, and while this may not strictly be recreation of deleted material, the reasons for deletion then still apply. By German law, he is not actually a prince, and there are thus no noble houses; and that seems to be his only claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - head of a defunct royal house is still notable. This was just on the "Did you know" part of the Main Page. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Technically, he's not the head of a defunct royal house, he's the son of the head of a defunct royal house.
    2601:249:9301:D570:A899:3E2B:BB8C:AE49 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is this some kind of infinite loop whereby the page is recreated every few years and then sent to AfD where the same participants make essentially the same comments? JMWt (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Classic example of there being sources, but no significant coverage more than an inch deep. As already stated, he is not actually a noble, which might have justified such an article, but the German nobility have been abolished for over 100 years. Yes, CBS has a bunch of pictures of their wedding, but this is essentially the equivalent of those "human interest stories" newspapers sometimes run where they give a deep dive to someone but not really due to any direct importance. To quote AFD2: "The rest of the article is utterly trivial (was born, went to school, got a job, got married, had kids, that's it.)". Not notable. SnowFire (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see that this article survived a deletion discussion years ago, failed another a few years after that, and now is up for deletion again. Definitely odd that it should get through the DYK process, only to be potentially deleted. My thoughts -- if he were the current head of the house, I'd be more keen on notability, but he's the heir, so whatever. The article as-is doesn't have great sourcing but I'd say there are sources to be found. The sources related to his marriage are fine sources. Might be a close-run thing, but given the choice to delete or keep, I say keep. The article doesn't need to be perfect right now, and I'm reasonably confident it will improve in the future. RexSueciae (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails SUSTAINED, sources restricted to breathless human interest crud, zero presumption of notability for being the "head" of defunct noble family. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is some coverage and I have expanded this article from when it was deleted the first time. By the nominator's logic, a Prince from a defunct royal dynasty does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. Okay, so does that mean the articles of Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon, Franz, Duke of Bavaria, and many more should be deleted also? Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is true that there is a nest of borderline-notability members of former noble families that could probably be deleted, although your examples aren't them. 2) Vittorio Emanuele is a bad example; he really was a noble when he was a kid, so he'd be judged under actual noble standards. 3) Most of your example articles involve people who have done notable things that would merit their inclusion regardless of their nobility - Franz von Bayern (who is not a Duke of Bavaria, for the record, there is no such position) would merit an article if he was simply a wealthy philanthropist with a backstory about his family having opposed the Nazis and been locked up by them. That's actually the more relevant hypothetical to think about: suppose that there was some parallel person to Hubertus who was not a noble, not a pretender, but was born into wealth and lived an identical life to Hubertus. Suppose we also had "high society" news that talked about all the wealthy friends that showed up to this scion's wedding. Is that enough for an article? Because that's the standard that needs to be met. We have this situation crop up all the time elsewhere for non-noble rich people, and we generally demand a little more than just "they exist" to get an article - they need to do something, anything. Sponsor a Formula 1 team, be a philanthropist, be a political donor or advocate, etc. Take a look at, say, Mellon family - you'll note that while there's plenty of bluelinks in the family tree, there's plenty of non-linked articles, too. Not everyone born into wealth gets a Wikipedia article, and that's okay. SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • These cases are not all equivalent anyway. I note first that the last's article is under his actual name, and that Vittorio Emanuele is probably notable fo all his escapades if nothing else. The Greek fellow presents something of a different issue since he was once crown prince but hasn't been such since he was seven or so, but all the business about a Greek royal house has been nonsense for half a century at least. The Portuguese and French pretenders likely should be deleted on the same grounds as this, namely, they seem to have no notability beyond supposedly being in their nonexistent positions. Thee's still time. Mangoe (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it is indeed true that the subject is not in fact a hereditary prince because such titles have been abolished, I would have to suggest that even if he is notable (I'll not offer opinion on that until I've looked into the matter further), it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to describe him as such, either in the article title or anywhere else. Wikipedia is not (amongst very many other things) a platform for advocacy for the restoration of German aristocratic ranks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, because the common name of a thing is not necessarily the same as its legal name. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is not his name legally. Jahaza (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that Wikipedia policy permits demonstrably false assertions of hereditary rank in article titles? That would appear to me to constitute a violation of WP:BLP policy amongst other things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:COMMONNAME we use the names commonly used for people. And, like it or not, members of royal families, whether or not their country is still a monarchy, are generally still referred to using the titles which they claim. We don't make a special exception to COMMONNAME for them. Arguing we should just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Besides the coverage the article subject got for his wedding back in 2009, he has been receiving coverage satisfying WP:SUSTAINED: Bunte, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Gala, Neue Presse, inFranken, Bayerischer Rundfunk, and L'Éventail. Also, whether or not the article subject is actually a prince or a noble has no bearing whatsoever on notability and getting a standalone page and neither does the content of the article itself. --StellarHalo (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When there is significant coverage, why is there only trivia in the article? As discussed above, there is no notability from the sources. A redirect to his father or his family would fulfill any encyclopedic needs. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He does appear to satisy WP:GNG. That's all that matters. Any other claims are mere anti-monarchist POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as an American I suppose I am supposed to an anti-monarchist, but whether or not Charles III ought to be king of the United Kingdom, the fact is that he does hold that position. Meanwhile I go back to this fellow's great-grandfather, who was the last man to actually be the duke, and I find he lost both his British and German titles as fallout from WW I. Everything since then is pretense. This man is not a prince, and it's rather difficult thing to work with sources which are playing along with the pretense, and even if one appeals to WP:COMMONNAME we are now culpable of participating in the fraud by calling him a prince. If he's notable as fake nobility, so be it, but I am dubious about that, and in any case, it is in that fake nobility which his only possible notability can lie. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no fraud or pretense. People can call themselves whatever they like. A state may strip hereditary nobles of their titles for political reasons but that does not invalidate those titles, particularly since that state didn't give them the titles in the first place (these titles long predate the Federal Republic of Germany, or indeed any other version of Germany). And if reliable sources generally use those titles then COMMONNAME is satisifed. As I said, your argument is no more than IDONTLIKEIT. As to Americans being anti-monarchist, I think many of your compatriots would disagree with you; many of them seem to be utterly obsessed with the British monarchy! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting a bit side-tracked here. COMMONNAME is maybe relevant if we decide the article is keep-able for how it should be titled. It's not relevant if the article doesn't meet the notability bar.
Obviously where the line is drawn will differ from person to person, but I'll say the same thing as above: if there was an article with the same level of sourcing and same degree of notable events on some rich scion but who had no recent-ish noble blood, should that article be kept? If people !voting "keep" here say yes, then fine, that's just differing notability standards, although I'm personally not a fan of articles mostly sourced to fawning society blotters. But I suspect that the result for such an article would generally be no, it'd get deleted. And if that's the case, then this article has the same exact issue, because objectively speaking Hubertus is just a scion of a wealthy family, at least according to current German law, like it or not. SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could anyone who claim, that it passes WP:GNG, explain how the coverage constitute "significant coverage". From what I checked, it appears really trivial to me. I asked already above and as by now nobody answered, I want to clarify my question. Whoever claims that WP:GNG is satisfied should be able to explain, what is significant about the coverage per WP:SIGCOV. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep look, titles or no, CBS News thought this fellow was relevant enough to publish their wedding photos. Official aristocracy or unofficial, clearly the name carries some weight. This is in-depth coverage, and no it doesn't make a difference that weddings are common.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/american-woman-marries-royalty/14/ BrigadierG (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Given sources found, improvements made to the article and current consensus of editors. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander J. Clements

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

Apparently this person is notable only for one event wp:1E, in which he is a perpetrator of a crime WP:PERP. On these two counts, I propose to delete this article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus so far is to delete, but time should be permitted for someone to evaluate and comment on the newest sources. (That does not mean that this should be dragged out repeatedly simply by continuing to add even more sources if they still do not establish clear notability.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I would be inclined to change my !vote/mind if the sources were add to the article, with appropriate text. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearian, thanks; I'll see if I can add some of these to the article over the next couple of days. As I said to Alansohn above, I'm not a regular at AfD so I don't know the norms, but I thought an AfD !vote should consider sources regardless of whether they're actually in the article? I'm sure I've seen AfD comments to the effect that "keep" voters should not be forced to add the sources they find to the article. Or have norms changed over the years? In my own case I don't mind adding the material if it's required, but I've been busy and I thought citing the sources in the AfD would be enough for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie, the chances that the article survives the AfD discussion increase significantly if you fix it. A nice, well written, well-sourced article about a subject of debatable notability stands a much better chance than the present sloppy article that has no indication of notability. And while you´re at it, please de-orphan the article. I came across this article because it is one of the oldest orphans on Wikipedia; in ten years no other article has been linked to it. So I proposed to delete this poor article that no other article refers to, about a subject without indication of notability. You have a better grasp of the subject and the sources than anyone else. You are best placed to save it and turn it into an interesting story that befits Wikipedia. Then I too would be delighted to support the keep vote. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ruud, what bothers me about this is that deletion is not supposed to be used instead of cleaning up an article -- it's explicitly listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I will do what I can to add some of these sources to the article, but I don't think it's appropriate to !vote delete if you really think that the sources are sufficient to support a worthwhile article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie, that is not what I said. I am convinced the subject is not notable and that the article should be deleted as per Wikipedia:1E and Wikipedia:PERP I think that after cleanup, it will become even clearer that this is so. But if you want to fight for it, and to enhance the chances of survival, why don´t you give it a shot and clean up the article. I have an open mind and am always willing to reconsider. As it stands, I really do not think that the all the sources you uncovered are sufficient to support a worthwile article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'll give it a shot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Meanwhile, I have de-orphaned the article. See "What links here". It will attract more onlookers. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand how this fails WP:GNG? There appears to be extensive coverage of his life across several decades, including an NYT obit, a biography in a book, regular coverage in all the area pages (including the NYT), etc. Failing WP:NPOL is not the end of the world; WP:MILL is an essay; i.e. irrelevant to determining notability; and I don't see the keep argument to be an WP:INHERENT rationale, considering there appears to be coverage for various things across various years. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject is notable only for one event: he was one of the 14 people indicted for the Hudson Courthouse graft scandal. As per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:PERP, I think that is not enough merit for a stand-alone article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've copied all the sources above to the talk page and documented what they cover in a table there, including a column to indicate whether they are about the Hudson Courthouse scandal or not. Only 8 of the 43 sources are about the scandal, though to be fair at least four or five of the other sources are unlikely to be much use in expanding the article. I will try to find more time tomorrow to incorporate some of these into the article, now they're a little better organized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to have tons of coverage and clearly seems to be a well-known figure. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @KatoKungLee Well-known for what exactly? I think this is a case of Wikipedia:REFBOMB. 100 newspaper clippings do not provide one reason for notability. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ruud Buitelaar - He's described as a prominent figure in NJ politics here 1. He labeled as accomplished here 2. He fraud trial got coverage as we can see and he ran for office multiple times. I think the sources are enough and he seems to be someone who the average person would know about at the time in the NJ area. I also do think more sources could exist since this concerns the early 1900's.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bearian, Reywas92, Eddie891, Ruud Buitelaar, Alansohn: I've added several paragraphs to the article using some of the sources I listed above. I have not expanded on the material for the Hudson County courthouse scandal as I was more interested in demonstrating that 1E and PERP do not apply here; instead I've expanded the material on his life, political career, and some other legal issues and graft accusations. There is more material that could be added if the consensus is still that he is not notable; there are hundreds more hits for Clements in newspapers.com but I just haven't had time to go through them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie Well done! Good job. I´ll withdraw my nomination and support keep. What changed the situation for me is the realization that the Hudson County court house graft was not an exception in an otherwise unremarkable career; the job of Superintendent of Bridges was created especially for Clements and who nows, the supervisor of roads job now also looks like cronyism. Clements´s career was marked by political corruption and he gained notoriety for that, even outside the Hudson County borders. Maybe at the time, that was run of the mill. Be that as it may, the biography gives a good impression of local politics at the turn of the century and deserves to be kept. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination after @Mike Christie changed the picture by uncovering new sources, adding reasons for notability and cleaning up the article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, am pleasantly surprised that a far more comprehensive article was able be built here than I thought. Happy to strike my original comment. Keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Mortal Online. Star Mississippi 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Online 2

Mortal Online 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to meet notability requirements either general or for video games. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Holborn

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

In the Gutenberg ebook A History of the Administration of the Royal Navy, he is mentioned just once, confirming that he and others "were in 1548 granted pensions on the Exchequer of fourpence a day ‘in consideration of their long and good service'". The next sentence then notes that James Baker was "the only master shipwright whose reputation outlived his generation". That's about it for Holborn; in fact, the article says very little about him specifically. Hardly enough for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Herbster

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

An article about an individual who gained not much into sports. I am still looking for redirect and per SIGCOV, it's pure to the purest eyes of lacking even microscopic sources! King me when sources are found and I will be ready to withdraw (I also didn't see any from BEFORE!).Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also several dead links that could probably be revived from the web archive. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst More thoughtfully, you should have known I never knew German and the least BEFORE I did gave me "just" database results and bunch if not many of some translated works. It's most important that you read the weak nomination stating pinging when sources are found and I am ready to withdraw! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Bozicevic

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:NTENNIS. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 06:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Chibvongodze

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Zimbabwean cricketer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvín Sántana

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

Sourcing is not sufficient. Some articles have identical content, which would indicate press release or paid placement. Maxcreator (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Dube

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

Unref lp, I couldn't find proof of notability. Has worked as an actor, but not necessarily notable. Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones provide the most significant, independent discussions about this actor and his work? The problem may be that the article was so badly and promotionally written and is entirely unreferenced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, promotionally written and unreferenced are not valid reasons to delete an article per WP:BEFORE and the nom states that they couldn't find proof that this individual is notable. dxneo (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it’s not my job to do a WP:BEFORE. Every one of the sources I added above was a WP:RS and adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Park3r (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was, and I didn't even vote to delete. I just noted that the lack of references makes it harder to evaluate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admittedly, the article could be formatted better and expanded. But yet again, we see a bias against African articles. Simply because some American or European has done a Google search and it has not been to their satisfaction, they decide that an article about an African topic is not notable, without having any idea about our countries, culture, celebrities and personalities. And then even when this proof is provided for them, they find reasons for why an African is not notable 'enough'. It is getting beyond tiresome now. Mangwanani (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangwanani, I second that. That's one of the reasons that pushed me to having few news sites from South Africa listed on WP:NPPSG so that the CiteHighlighter script can indicate reliable sources. I have Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/South Africa on my watchlist and I'm not kidding when I'm saying it is overflowing with AfDs, and I'm grateful they're nominating non-notable subjects but a quick Google search on Desmond Dube is enough to some up SIGCOV which brings me back to your bias statement because look at how many RS Park3r presented. One user once said African sources are tempered with & they are fabricated, and others would say "I've never heard of it". Leaning towards keep per Park3r. dxneo (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is increasingly feeling like an English encyclopaedia with a focus on the Core Anglosphere. Awareness of Systemic Bias seems to be out of the window. Another issue aren’t enough South African editors who participate in AFD or the encyclopaedia itself. I’m feeling increasing levels of disappointment at the energy I’m wasting on defending AFDs like this one. Park3r (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of times I've had to argue with some Westerner who doesn't know the first thing about Africa is staggering. They always state that they are not racist, but you can't help but feel that they do in fact think of us as somewhat backwards and not really capable of knowing our own countries... Even when I've referenced books on particular topics, I've been told "Ahh, but it's not got an online presence, so it can't possibly be real..." It's beyond fatiguing. The highlight for me was when I had the Zimbabwe general election results removed as vandalism, because they had no internet source, even though they were being broadcast on national TV and online as I typed them! But the BBC hadn't recorded the fact, so our dear little Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation can't possibly know what they're reporting until Mr BBC tells them so.... Mangwanani (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mangwanani, I see that you started this article. Maybe the bigger problem is that you wrote an *entirely unreferenced* Wikipedia article. I wonder how many other entirely unreferenced articles you have written. This is not a "formatting" problem, it is a complete lack of referencing. Please add refs per WP:V, one of Wikipedia's key content policies. Perhaps then you would not have to spend your time at AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator of an article for deletion is expected to follow WP:BEFORE. Section D clearly states that a basic Google search is required as part of the nomination, and if valid sources exist, then the nomination should not proceed. I will WP:AGF and assume that the nominator and first delete vote somehow didn’t get those results (although I know for a fact that all these results and sources are available outside of South Africa - they are not geoblocked). Park3r (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second Ssilvers, Mangwanani you must reference your articles no matter they've been televised or not as it really is the main wiki key. However, new page reviewers who reviewed the article(s) in the first place are in the wrong and should be stripped off their perms 'cause they could've sent the (unreferenced) article to drafts pace but they want the barnstars so they quickly move through articles. dxneo (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sending SA articles to draft is as good as deleting them, I suspect, but maybe I’m naive and haven’t engaged with draftspace enough. This article was created in 2008. The fact that it hadn’t been nominated for deletion in 15-16 years should raise the index of suspicion that the subject is, in fact notable, and be a further indication that sources should be sought out. But, regardless, editing an article is still an option once WP:BEFORE is completed and reliable sources are found. Park3r (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sources provided above show that this is a notable actor. Yes it was made unsourced - because it was made 16 years ago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Criticising the nomination doesn't help the discussion, it just raises the temperature. The nominator rather than WP:PRODing brought this to AfD. The best way to repudiate notability concerns is by adding reliable sources to the article that verify the content and establish notability. If one feels strongly this article should be kept add sources, yet although 20+ sources have been put up in this discussion, 5 days have passed with not a single one added. The article remains unsourced; not a desirable state for any article, let alone for a WP:BLP. Rupples (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That’s a reasonable point but WP:NOTCLEANUP. I’d also note that you could have added sources to the article as well. Park3r (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't particularly subscribe to AfD is not cleanup; infact I see AfD as a great opportunity to cleanup. Having no reliable sources at all is more than cleanup, especially for a BLP. On your second point, BLP is not an area I normally contribute to and I'm reticent to add sources to BLP articles if I'm unsure of their reliability. I wouldn't have been able to support retention of this article without two or more reliable sources being added. Pleased to see sources have now been added by PARAKANYAA and I'm placing trust in that editor's judgment on their reliability. Rupples (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the light of sources added to the article and identified in this discussion, there seems sufficient reliably sourced coverage for the subject to pass applicable notability guidelines. Rupples (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 04:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Peña

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

Since the two names on this recently-created (on 8 December 2023) disambiguation page are not exactly the same, the dab page main title header does not accurately reflect either one of those two names. Once this dab page is deleted, a hatnote atop Ralph Pena (musician) can point to Ralph B. Peña. No need for a hatnote atop Ralph B. Peña since users searching for his entry can simply type Ralph B. Peña or Ralph B. Pena to access him directly. Moreover, since the two surnames are not exactly alike, the header of the musician's entry can dispense with the parenthetical qualifier "(musician)" and appear as simply Ralph Pena, otherwise Ralph Pena would be an unnecessary redirect to Ralph Pena (musician). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From the article, Ralph Pena (musician)'s actual name seems to be spelled with the tilde, and the sources spell it the same way. Shouldn't his article be titled with the tilde as well? Unsure how that would affect this discussion though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The musician was an American, born in Nevada. A photograph of his gravestone, with the family name, inscribed without any diacritics, can be seen here. Furthermore, as confirmed by the covers of all of his numerous recordings, nowhere is his name rendered with a diacritic. As for the two sources listed at the bottom of his Wikipedia entry, neither AllMusic nor The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz. 2nd edition, add a diacritic to his name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see the The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz (or at least the citation) does. Several of the covers of the albums he featured in do have the diacritic (see discogs [1 2 3). His (seemingly official) Facebook page does. So I guess it's more complicated than that but he sometimes did use the diacritic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, at least three album covers do use a diacritic to depict his name. Among the five album covers seen here at Discogs, only one (Impossible) has a diacritic on the cover. While he died 35 years before Facebook's 2004 founding, his "official" Facebook fan / memorial page does depict his name with a diacritic, although the album cover chosen to appear near the top of that Facebook page has no diacritic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

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

A search provides no evidence of notability, under WP:NJOURNALIST or any other notability criterion. WP:RS and WP:BEFORE show extensive published material by the subject in RS but virtually no RS biographical coverage about the subject. Also no evidence of significant awards that themselves have notability per WP:ANYBIO. No available evidence of notability under WP:JOURNALIST. Being related to notable family members is not itself notable (WP:BLPFAMILY) nor is having interviewed notable people.--Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a journalist that list the parents (does it now makes it BLP WP:BIOFAMILY). I disagree completely with you!. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article about a Journalist passes WP:GNG (that she has worked in various news platforms—which goes on media about her entering). Meets WP: JOURNALIST as a creative professional, whose works has appeared on WSJ, New Yorker, etwx. Cited notably without inherence of interviewing the American President Barack Obama.Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don't think I understand what you're getting at, but the act of interviewing a high-profile person and publishing articles or working for national publications does not make one notable per WP:JOURNALIST. The criteria are:
    • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
    • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
    • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
    • The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
    While I think she's an excellent journalist personally, I can find no independent coverage of Pulliam Bailey that provides evidence for any of these criteria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't you see my striking? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much focusing on her career or actions in specific. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as mentioned in the nomination, does not satisfy any of the notability criteria in WP:JOURNALIST. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 06:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mupen64Plus

Mupen64Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any reliable secondary sources. For the sources in the article:

10 is sourced to an article that also only mentions the software once. QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep - Digital Trends' one paragraph isn't what I would consider significant coverage. Win Magazine article starts talking about the emulator only at halfway point so it's basically similar to Digital Trends in word count. CD-Action is the best of the three but still not especially beefy article. Not enough to pass GNG with these three sources. --Mika1h (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mika1h: I also found a Softpedia review of the emulator. That is considered a reliable source as well, maybe it will change your view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Softpedia does reviews on request so I don't count their reviews towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep since I found some reviews for a variant of the emulator by Softonic: [60], [61], also a list entry from Pocket Gamer: [62]. --Mika1h (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for newly found source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. I see no consensus here and there have been no comments after two relistings so I doubt a third one would usher in more participation. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuckahoe and Cohee

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

both subjects already have articles? ltbdl (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a WP:SAMETYPEFORK of Tuckahoe culture and Cohee, and reads like a WP:DICTIONARY entry. Redtree21 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I vote to have it merged into Tuckahoe culture.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Not much support for redirect, and no obvious target identified anyway. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principle of abstraction

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

Insufficient content to determine article subject. Existing content is unclear. No sources given.

WP:BEFORE search is complicated. Most uses of the phrase are in reference to philosophy of Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell. Admittedly, I am having a hard time understanding their meaning of this term. See, eg.

Mauri Leppänen seems to have independently developed her own meaning for the phrase.

While this is dense material that I have not fully grasped, I am sufficiently persuaded that their meaning is not closely related to the current content of this article, and so is irrelevant to this discussion. Daask (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While several editors have voiced support for Deletion, there is a list of possible sources that I'm not confident have been examined so I'm relisting this discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here is a chapter on the specific "principle of abstraction" as discussed by Gottlob and Frege. If it merits a whole 24-page chapter in an academic philosophy book, it's almost certainly possible to write an article on it. A search of Google Scholar with Bertrand Russell's name attached turns up plenty of other results as well. Frege and Russell are certainly both highly notable philosophers, if a concept is being discussed by the two of them we can at the very least write about what secondary sources say that the two of them had to say about it. Psychastes (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mere existence of a reference with that title is insufficient to show that the topic is better served by a dedicated article rather than being covered in an article with a broader scope, e.g., Bertrand Russell's philosophical views, Russell's paradox, Logicism, etc. And the existing text is bad enough to call for WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is probably not a great standalone article, and probably won't ever be unless someone who is really into early 20th century analytic philosophy decides to flesh it out in detail, but that's a better argument for a redirect with possibilities than for deletion. WP:TNT seems unnecessary, there's nothing wrong with the article like copyright violations in the history or anything, and at least "principle of abstraction" could be categorized as a concept in various philosophy categories per WP:INCOMPATIBLE where the target page isn't a principle or a concept. And the fact that a full article likely won't ever be written doesn't change the fact that it could be. Psychastes (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, Psychastes, what would you suggest as a Redirect target article then? Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, there doesn't seem to be much on Bertrand Russell's philosophical views right now that it could be pointed to (though if there were that might be an okay target...), so I think Abstraction#In_philosophy would probably be the best for now? Psychastes (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. If anyone disagrees, feel free to just revert this, but I don't see any reasonable prospect for a consensus to emerge to remove this. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gandra, Póvoa de Varzim

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

fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus is to Keep this article but I really hope the editors advocating Keep can work on improving it with more inline citations. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of elephants in Europe

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

most of the article is an indiscriminate list of historical occurrences where elephants might have been involved. ltbdl (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Stechschulte

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

Non-notable dead actor with no significant lead roles. Has had requests for sourcing for 15 years with zero improvement. Macktheknifeau (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macktheknifeau and the fact that an article subject is dead, has nothing to do with notability either. Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being dead does have much to do with his notability, because it makes it practically impossible that he would suddenly gain notability now. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main activity of his career was in a time period where there won't be a lot of internet hits for more in depth pieces. Given the stuff mentioned above + looking on proquest myself, he seems notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tile Studio

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

Unsourced, non-notable software. No significant coverage in reliable sources. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree with A412 that Softpedia isn't really great in this context and overall the mentions to me don't seem to justify anything more than a name-drop in Tile-based video game, especially as AFAIK this hasn't been used to develop any notable titles. ― novov (t c) 06:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 04:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informal romanizations of Cyrillic

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

A single reliable source (Frolov) that discuss the subject at a minimal reasonable detail, but even it is not cited, neither it supports anything in the article (but does blurb something on the subject). - Altenmann >talk 01:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 04:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Lisa Solomon

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

Delete: as non-notable murder. Not all murders are meet WP:NOTABILITY. This domestic incident has no wider social ramifications -- nothing to do with law enforcement, racism, sexism, nationalism, nationality, etc. See WP:MURDER. Nirva20 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article doesn't really show this, but this does seem to meet WP:NEVENT. It has had more or less 30+ years of sustained coverage, and if you look it up has multiple articles describing it as "one of long island's most famous murders". Also just because a murder doesn't tie into broader social issues, that doesn't mean it isn't notable??? It's about the depth and length of coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I live in NYC and only found about it today while watching a crime show network. I seriously doubt it qualifies as one of Long Island's most famous murders, at least anymore. That would probably be Ted Ammon, btw. Nirva20 (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If something is being mentioned thirty years after it happened on television and has numerous articles discussing it in detail to this day, it is probably a notable event.
Do you have a deletion rationale other than you didn't know that it happened, therefore it is unnotable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No lasting consequences. "Sustained coverage" is not demonstrated, just occasional popping up. - Altenmann >talk 01:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other than the person getting out of jail in 2019, there was hardly any coverage in between the murder and his release. Burst of initial coverage, then featured on tv shows that go over hundreds of cases each... I don't see lasting effects, no changes in laws, no critical discussion of the police etc. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Events, and New York. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT criteria due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED and WP:DIVERSE coverage. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE where we have bursts of news coverage at the time of the murder, and upon the release of the murderer, but no coverage outside of a routine news context. We would need to see other types of coverage such as journal articles, books, writing outside of the routine news cycle, etc. to show it passes NEVENT. That currently hasn't been demonstrated in the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to those stating that WP:SUSTAINED is not shown: The article states that the entire trial was broadcast live on the News 12 Cable News channel. That looks like an unreferenced source, but I checked the NYT citation that follows a couple sentences later and it is stated there. That NYT article has a whole section dedicated to the media frenzy over pre-trial publicity, how the cable news channel had two live anchors providing commentary during breaks in the trial, the defense had made a motion to move the trial out of Suffolk County due to the publicity, and a motion for mistrial due to statements that the prosecutor(? I didn't look close enough who "Mr. Mazzei" was) had made to the press during the trial. One of the witnesses in the trial was a "L.I. News Tonight" reporter about some of the coverage his organization had shown on television. I'm still on the fence about the article, but the statements that "Other than the person getting out of jail in 2019, there was hardly any coverage in between the murder and his release" and similar statements are provably wrong. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Curtis

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and shows no real notability. Pretzelles (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. As per the DRV result, no need to wait any longer--or at all--before closing this.

Firstly, neither G4 nor G5 apply here. The article has been edited by various good-faith editors, and is no longer essentially identical to any deleted version. I also find no basis in policy or guideline that coverage for North American people must come from North American sources. Promotional tone should be fixed editorially, and is not a valid deletion criterion unless the page meets G11, which this one does not.

Conversely, I also find most of the Keep arguments weak. Being famous in certain circles or starting a big teenage media company are not P&G-based arguments. In the end, as always, things boil down to source assessment. And on this front, the Delete views correctly argued that in marginal cases like this, WP:BIO compels us to delete the page. If the subject was indeed as notable as the Keep participants claim, surely there would be sources offering more significant, independent coverage than the few interviews cited, as pointed out by several participants.

Finally, a proposal to Draftify received limited support here. Without a concrete plan to work on the page, including both editors ready to do the work and potential independent sources to prove notability, all within the six month timeframe, moving a potential BLP violation to draftspace seems ill-advised. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jin (entrepreneur)

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

I can't find any reasonable purpose for a standalone article. I noticed this could be vandalism since the parenthesis isn't movable except by an admin. Well, I can't find sources which didn't provide me enough reasons to be inclusive. Fails WP: GNG. The founding company doesn't seem to be notable or reach any WP: ORG and some of not all seems to base on the company and not the subject (there could be mentions) but still Notability is not inherited. While I believe Notability is not permanent, The young subject can be notable in the future All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://billboard.ar/la-carrera-musical-secreta-de-justin-jin/ Yes Yes WP:RSMUSIC Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.elcaribe.com.do/gente/a-y-e/de-nino-le-encantaban-los-videojuegos-ahora-justin-jin-esta-construyendo-un-imperio-mediatico/ Yes Yes Newspaper of record Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.excelsior.com.mx/trending/justin-jin-entre-la-innovacion-y-la-travesia-en-la-era-digital/1636100 Yes Yes established Mexican paper ~ ChatGPT? ~ Partial
https://thesource.com/2023/12/28/inside-justin-jins-poybo-empire/ Yes s Yes WP:RSMUSIC Yes ✔ Yes
https://independent.ng/teenagers-are-building-africas-youth-media-empire/ Yes Yes WP:NGRS Yes WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
https://nl.mashable.com/entertainement/9316/minecraft-made-justin-jin-a-star-now-hes-a-media-mogul Yes ~ WP:MASHABLE Yes ~ Partial
https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/leaders/exclusive-teen-mogul-justin-jin-agrees-to-divest-some-media-assets-to-expand-african/fqfvl4l No Prob press release ~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER ~ WP:ROUTINE ✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/meet-the-billion-view-digital-upstart-and-its-16-year-old-founder/ Yes Yes WP:NGRS Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
TLAtlak 16:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY: Sources 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are interviews. Interviews are not independent and do not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An overachiever in Silicon Valley who has been discussed in a myriad of publications including ones presented in the “source assessment table”. According to the General Notability Guideline, “Significant coverage” is a factor and these reliable sources do address Mr. Justin Jin in great detail. 205.220.129.230 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does three or four article talking about a media company and their founder notable? The articles is lacking context and should not be inherited from his "media company." Otherwise, It fails Business People guideline. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Otuọcha your line of inquiry in this discussion appears to be quite flawed, and overall a bit questionable. isn't there much more than three or four articles which all vastly revolve around Justin Jin? how are they lacking context? you should also probably review WP:INHERITED. the hyperfocus on Justin Jin is why I believe the company itself falls short of WP:NCORP. the articles profile, analyze him, but not exactly much about what the company itself does. the company is likely a too soon case. i agree with TLA's summary, although I think business insider should be treated completely as a press release and routine coverage. She was afairy 06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By TLA's summary, if you're referring to the source assessment table, I've already pointed out that interviews are not considered independent and are deemed as primary sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to adjust my table, but from what I understand is that the independence of interviews depend on the actual content. Is there anywhere that specifically states that interviews are not considered independent, full stop? TLAtlak 03:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to the policy that says "independence of interviews depend on the actual content"? WP:PRIMARY says Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Here, the interviewer is obviously involved, and the interviewee is the subject who is talking about themselves. For clarity, WP:PRIMARYNEWS, WP:ALLPRIMARY and WP:SPIP discuss interviews as sources. Majority of the sources here are interviews, which do not count towards 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. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking for clarity because I participate in AfD often and reviewing pages. I've come across that in many other AfDs (I don't want to link to them to canvas) but there is one going on right now in which two autopatrolled+NPP users have stated although the interview itself is primary, the information the source often provides before the interview can be considered a secondary source. In addition, the WP:PRIMARYNEWS you linked to me contains an example of an interview primary source: The reporter quotes the politician's speech. The talk show host interviews a celebrity. If the reporter simply relays what the politician says that is primary, and a talk show host interviewing a celebrity is just a plain question & answer, and that's primary. These sources are far from that. I also see that you said below that WP:INTERVIEW is an essay, and that is true, but it is useful and there really is no other place that writes extensively about a rather relevant policy. TLAtlak 01:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most interviews conducted by reputable journalists or news publications typically begin with a brief overview of the subject, which may be considered secondary and the information can be used in the article(without attribution). But, the gist will not have significant coverage and the point here is that they do not count towards GNG. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay and has no weightage in AfDs. Not sure if you have noticed the last part of Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, "...can be considered as evidence of notability". Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "myriad"? Surely that's an exaggeration. Deb (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, Interviews can be a secondary sources per WP:INTERVIEW. The Source and the Daily Trust articles only have 10-15% quoted from Jin, the rest is analysis or comparison, so this meets biographical notability requirements. Captain☎ 10:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that CaptainBottle (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    CaptainBottle: WP:INTERVIEWS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you're relatively very new perhaps days to Enwiki. The article may be filled as WP: REFBOMB. There can be WP: LOTSOFSOURCES yet no credibility. I know how Nigerian Media works per Independent Nigeria, Daily Trust, etc and I must say; the sources just treated the subject as the teenage founder of a media industry. In analysis, there is always a way to show Notability. I can't find the subject being treated alone on news per his achievements/or career and a media qualifier, or any award for media excellence since he is the CEO of Poybo. Being the CEO of Poybo is not enough to be inclusive and the media industry is not notable per WP: ORG/WP:N unlike Amazon, Dangote Group, etc or like business moguls who had won awards of excellence or profiled as an influential person". I believe I have cleared that Many sources are not enough! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Otuọcha this is rather incoherent. If the pubs you are referring to are treating the subject as the teenage founder of a media industry, what do you mean by can't find the subject being treated alone on news per his achievements/or career and a media qualifier? Poybo doesn’t have an article for notability inheriting and awards are not necessary for establishing notability. I would also advise against the possible WP:BLUDGEONing of this discussion. TLAtlak 03:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be my last comment. I don't understand when you stated WP: BLUDGEON. Well, per WP: SATISFY, "Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not." All I am saying is this article is a G4 which I realized later after trying to remove the unnecessary parenthesis. For the article in question, it fails GNG and not quite SIGCOV. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is really thin making it a borderline case for the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG; a compromise is inadvisable in a businessperson biography. Nor am I convinced of the "independent" and "multiple" aspects of the sources presented. Regarding the latter, all the sources are saying more or less the same thing, which is very little. Regarding the former, I am taking into considering previous history of the article, the fact that non-regular editors have shown to vote keep on this article which was never indexed and is under a title with disambiguator. The fact that the sources say more or less the same thing also contributes to a lack of confidence in them regarding independence. Also adding to the same, is the fact that the sources presented are of Latin American and African origin while the subject is Canadian, though there is no convincing case made that the subject has predominantly and exclusively worked in those far away places. Finally, the claim to notability in itself is really thin. I get the idea that it's a young person who's been doing some things, but it's hard to see a coherent and persuasive picture of the totality of his activities, how integral he may be to those and what if any lasting impact they might have. I see an element of WP:CRYSTAL in the coverage that exists and in a potential presumption of notability we might make. If he stopped doing everything he's been doing today, would we consider him a notable businessperson in 2044? The answer for me is a firm "no", on the merits of the sourcing presented. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There is no inheriting in terms of notability from the Poybo company here — it actually seems the other way around or at the very least equal. As well, Poybo doesn’t have an article for inheriting. Coverage revolves primarily around the subject, not the company. WP:G4 is also utterly inapplicable — not only being a speedy delete, the previous AfD (12 months ago) cited none of these new applicable sources as Shewasafairy noted, the current article writes about a new company, and has potential for expansion. The African sourcing does make sense per the selling of a subsidiary or whatever, but that really shouldn’t be hypothesized/considered about and is not a policy. As well, Spanish language should not be considered per WP:GNG. With WP:Interviews#Notability and reviewing past AfDs and discussions regarding the independence of interviews, interviews can help establish notability, and regardless the interview sourcing used here has considerable secondary content. There’s also sufficient non-interview sourcing. I’ll also say that the nominator’s rationales throughout has been a bit contradictory, maybe that's a language thing, but that doesn’t play into my analysis. Neither the previous history of an article nor whatever SPA may be going on here should be any part of determining notability. Unless, of course, an article is recreated under G4 with no substantial changes or additions to sourcing, which is not the case here. WP:CRYSTAL should apply to the Wikipedia project, not apply to the coverage itself; on the other hand, if I’m going to counter crystal, what person would stop doing everything he’s been doing today, and would more coverage appear rather soon that would undoubtedly push this arguably borderline subject over the edge, much less by 2044? I think so. Finally, the claim to notability — having founded what a couple sources deem the largest teen media companies — here is strong enough (it was added a couple hours after Usedtobecool’s vote). To be fair, WP:TOOSOON was originally a potential consideration for me, which is why I was a little hesitant to place a straight-up vote, but with further review of the sourcing and that the second criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER may potentially apply here, this meets and exceeds our notability criteria based on real policy. TLAtlak 02:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A very weak argument expanded into wall of text. WP:ENTERTAINER is for actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. I believe he fits none of the categories. Stop bringing essays into XfD arguments, they are not policies. There’s also sufficient non-interview sourcing, Could you please provide the sources in the reply below? I would like to review. While the secondary content from interviews can be added into the article, the interview source as a whole is not independent. Therefore, it does not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it was not my intention to make a wall of text/essay. My small point with WP:ENTERTAINER relates to comedians, vaguely, with the fact that the subject seems to make comedy videos and that the company itself posts a lot of memes. TLAtlak 11:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Entertainment? you’re modifying your own comments. DIVINE 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the above users, Fairy and TLA, what has to be noted here is that while WP: Interview is not fully reliable, the articles written so long before the interview or partial interview are subjected to reliable sources. DIVINE 06:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Striking !vote not made in good faith; see Special:Diff/1217066849. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. it may be worth disregarding the G4. i disagreed with it, but after the changes added a couple days ago it objectively directly addresses the concern with no new assertions of notability. She was afairy 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per my comments regarding the source assessment table and WP:INTERVIEW essay [63][64]. I am willing to change my vote to keep if someone can provide three independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still disagree with you directly calling these sources containing small portions of an interview a non-independent source, but here are just three with nothing quoted from the subject, two of which are RS and one is an established WP:NEWSORG: Billboard, Independent, Excélsior (this reads slightly promotional from the start, but later on Pacheco writes this success comes with increasing scrutiny of the company's labor and ethical practices, especially regarding the exploitation of young creators and the hiring of workers in precarious conditions in developing countries (translated) so it's probably a Google Translate issue. TLAtlak 11:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting aside for a moment the fact that, again, it's Billboard Argentina covering a Canadian figure, not Billboard US or Billboard Canada, are we sure Billboard Argentina is the real deal? Looks like you're inheriting its reliability and reputation from Billboard, a US organisation. The links in the about section of that article just reload the page, and the twitter link takes you to an account with 200K followers compared to 14M for Billboard. Clicking through Billboard Argentina indicates its ownership and licensing belongs to an Argentinian company, compared to Billboard Japan or Billboard Brasil which state in the lead that they are associated with the US Billboard. I go back to concerns I raised in my !vote again. We usually associate this kind of brand theft, if it is that, with covert advertisers and spammers, and often even covert Wikipedia UPEs. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the real deal. TLAtlak 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are inheriting the reliability and reputation from the US Billboard, yeah? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They co-publish a chart and Billboard Argentina is a frequent writer for billboard.com. At the moment, my assumption is that it is reliable. TLAtlak 12:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it calls an obscure 17-year-old Canadian a "mogul", a word usually reserved for the likes of Rupert Murdoch, I am thinking not so much. In any case, I think you should amend your source analysis table, lest people think RSMUSIC lists Billboard Argentina as a reliable source. When you take out the rumors, speculation, unattributed quotes and empty praises, there really isn't much there. One of the sources of that piece is "google search". The most it can give is: "Justin Jin is a media entrepreneur and youtuber who owns Poybo Media Group." — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is common for publications to use an eye-catching word in the headline. The definition of "Mogul" certainly vague, and the piece does actually verify a connection to a 500,000 monthly listener "secret music career" from the Poybo producer. TLAtlak 14:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Excélsior article is a joke. There is no significant coverage about him on the article apart from the PR fluffery. The article only has praises and admiration about the subject, but not a single detail about his life or work in-depth. I am yet to check the other two sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. I don't really like that source either, there is a section without praise, but it reads somewhat like an edited AI entry. Jeraxmoira, as you mentioned once that reputable publications need analysis and commentary, I suggest reading Daily Trust, and that secondary sources typically begin with a brief overview of the subject, I also suggest checking out The Source. Both are RS. TLAtlak 14:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop sharing sources before analyzing them yourself. The article from Independent does not have significant coverage. Daily Trust and The Source are interviews. Do not selectively quote from my previous comment, I only said "Most interviews conducted by reputable journalists... - ... which may be considered secondary and the information can be used in the article(without attribution)". I never implied that it counts towards GNG. At this point, I am only repeating what I have said all this while, so I'll not be responding here unless you have something policy backed. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did analyze them. The Independent meets WP:100WORDS, an essay but what constitutes WP:SIGCOV itself is vague. I'm maybe going a bit far here, but I have seen in this AfD (I think I remember seeing another one but I can't find it nor do I want to hunt for it) you state the Hindu article contributes to GNG, while the Hindu article contains considerably more quoting than the two interview sources I mentioned as well as that canvassed (?) user.
    Are you saying here that any interview = not contributing to GNG? There is very minimal direct quoting in many of these sources containing interviews. For now, I don't want to get involved further in this as we are practically going nowhere, and will be retaining my keep vote. TLAtlak 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop selectively quoting my comments out of context, [65]. The paragraph on Independent has very little detail about him i.e., 'he is 17' and 'he leads Poybo'. This is nowhere near significant coverage. All the sources say the same. Does the source have anything new to add or is this a WP:BLP1E candidate? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focusing on source assessment would be more helpful than arguing about applicable guidelines or speedy criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Analysing the sources. The first source here [66] was from the citation doubtful of the subject when this writing was made: A mysterious artist profile, 50mMidas, was discovered late last year while scrolling through Spotify's top song charts. The account, with an equally random Instagram page, has been rising through the ranks, becoming a competitive music artist on the platform with over 500,000 monthly listeners and another paragraph began; A Google search revealed that the artist likely belonged to Justin Jin, the teen CEO of the world's largest teen media company. Accessing the first citation was without doubt it was bias-written from related point of view.The second citation here [67] was written by a contributor and sounds promotional. For me, it may have been created from a related view since some wordings lacks editorial pass. The third source here [68] was written focusing on "one Muraty" with a/few mention of the article's subject "Jin". I won't say it is inclusively a source. The fourth source [69] was marked yellow by my citation highlighter meaning; the source is likely to be reliable. Looking into the article, it systematically wasn't news, it's a bit of few quotations of "Jin". The source was created perhaps by a contributor since there was no indication it was written by an author at Mashable. The [70], [71] and [72] for the article were cited for, Jin lives in Ambleside, West Vancouver. He goes to Mulgrave School. As of 2024, he hasn't attended college All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Has a very PROMO feel to it. No coverage at all in Canadian sources, only a few conferences. Coverage in Argentina and in India [73], which seem to me to be undeclared paid promotional content. The IBT source is a non-RS, so this has PROMO-vibes. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "PROMO-vibes" is not a strong assessment. the ib times source is not even used here. 6/9 of the sources here are green-label (reliable). She was afairy 02:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The colours don't necessarily represent consensus. Even if they did, there's always more to source analysis than whether it comes from one considered generally reliable. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A good amount of them do. There is 6, and to me, 5 of them meet our requirements for significant coverage and independence. TLAtlak 12:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's most fit when citations are from reliable sources. Like @Usedtobecool said, its more to verifiability (considering the basis of the citation and at some cases: what it cites). It is not regarded to take for example a hoax that cites, "John Doe was born in Italy but grew up in Iowa. He is a socially influencing personality known for his diverse way of accepting fact of his company in Iowa also. His parents were the first CEO but handed it over to him because he was a good and god-fearing child. Even I, the editor love such narrative!". Looking at that above, it may have been written maybe by Mashable, NY times, Al Jazeera and many others. Are you saying it passes GNG when it came from a reliable source but fails verifiability, credibility and editorial..ity? All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment came across a sh*t storm. Leaning towards keep and improve. so this Kid Justin Jin at first glance appears to meet the the notability criteria for biographies on Wikipedia WP:BIO, particularly as an individual who has gained recognition in the media industry as a young entrepreneur and media executive. The issue I am having hard time believing that with the sources, is if we all couldn't find 2-3 reliable sources... Some of the sources do seem unquestionably strong. There are no required set amount of sources to establish notability.
      • The references provided suggest significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including international media outlets that discuss his international work and impact on youth-led media WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV The comparison to established media figures like Henry Luce and Rupert Murdoch indicates that Jin's activities have sparked attention beyond trivial mentions. However, the article would benefit from additional citations to address the [citation needed] tag and to strengthen the claims made, particularly with regard to Poybo Media's status as the world's biggest teenager-led media company. The [better source needed] tag also suggests that a more reliable source is required for the Business Insider claim. This kid looks like he is doing youth activism according to the sources, and while this article needs cleanup. I also saw users saying the WP:intertviews weren't valid, becauase: "thats an essay on wikipedia" well we hold essays to high standards. WP:Draftify is an Essay, yet if fail to follow the guidelines set out in that essay, you can lose perms for not following. I am going to do some scrolling. Before casting my vote. I am really confused as to why it seems like an us vs him thing. It gets to the point where others may make interpretations of WP policy based on their understanding of it.
      Comintell (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Justin Jin, being a media 'mogul', will obviously have a good enough PR team to set up interviews for him. Unless you have a very strong reason as to why WP:INTERVIEWS should be considered in this case and why Justin Jin should be treated as an exception from GNG, please don't waste your time bringing up the essay again. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Its only primary if its based on a vanilla/routine interview right? Which don't contribute to GNG (like a talkshow/whatnot??) WP:Interviews seemed appropriate towards the argument for the ones you brought up with @I'm tla, because they didn't seem to be the exact definition of a routine interview like this one from The Source, which appeared to be an article that featured original insight and analysis + quotes from the subject? Are you sure that references like that don't count towards GNG? What throws me off is the fact that they don't seem to be routine "interviews," which is what I thought didn't count. This entire AfD seems split divided.
      Even though i'm still not 100% convinced that the page should be deleted, I am going to just drop the stick considering there's a mixed bag of opinions in this discussion. I hope you see where I was coming from and why I brought up WP:Interviews. Hopefully my response is up to the high standards you've framed. Sorry if I upset you. I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Comintell (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me summarize. I am not going to be lenient in this particular case just because he gave interviews to several news media outlets. Despite being the founder of the world's largest teenager-led media company and working in the media/entertainment industry, the absence of independent coverage is a huge red flag. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I'm going to continue my involvement here. I don't know about you, but being the founder of the world's largest teenager-led media company rings a bell at WP:ENT#2. It might also be worth mentioning that while the number of subscribers certainly cannot determine notability, it can only help at WP:ENT. The independent coverage I presented above satisfies me, but it appears I missed Dana Mathews' (GQ's Entertainment Director) profile of Jin here from being on the cover of the GQ's Power Issue.
      WP:BLP1E really does not apply here. Founding a company is not an event, and I don't see how starting a (presumably) high-profile one would make a person remain a low-profile individual. Citing an essay again *sigh* WP:BLP1ENOT. TLAtlak 09:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the second time you've brought up WP:ENT in the discussion. Have you even checked the first line of WP:ENT before assessing the subject for criteria #1 and #2? You mentioned he was a comedian previously, but none of the sources I've seen so far have indicated that. Can you please stop introducing SNG criterias you're not familiar with as it is prolonging this AfD thread unnecessarily. And the GQ article you mentioned was posted, archived on the Wayback Machine and deleted on the same date (March 15, 2024). Another red flag? How you came across the archived version is a question for another day. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I think I am familiar enough with WP:ENT. See WP:YTN, and I would, again, say that memes = comedy.
      The GQ piece is in the article itself. I'm tla (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but I am done. I don't think you have enough competence to understand what the other editors and I are trying to convey. You first cite WP:INTERVIEWS and then once it failed, you dug up WP:ENT. It was clearly explained and is also well known to anyone who is part of this AfD that the subject is not known/notable for his meme(comedy?) videos and to add on, the channel has been inactive from 13 June 2023. Now, you have stumbled upon another essay, WP:YTN, which also mentions that only 7% of articles have been kept of subjects with < 100k subs, but you seem to ignoring it. You can keep digging up more and more essays, but justin jin does not pass WP:GNG and the rest of SNGs do not apply to him. The GQ piece is very suspicious as I have already mentioned that it was created, archived and deleted in a single day and now you have the archived version with no trace of it anywhere else. Below, you have mentioned 4 statements that clearly belongs in the Poybo article if and when it is created. There is a reason why the article about Alakh Pandey, the founder of Physics Wallah, was and is still being redirected or merged to the company's article whenever someone tries to recreate it. I am not saying the same outcome should be given here as every AfD needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not by previous consensus on other topics or AfDs. When there are only/mostly interviews by Justin as sources right now, it makes it really hard to verify all the claims made by them as obviously the next interviewer is going to do their due diligence from the previously written sources to add their own secondary analysis and comments in between their interview, which ultimately violates the WP:OR (WP:PSTS section) policy. From what I have seen till now, none of the sources are detailed enough, they are largely just puff pieces. Note to closing admin: The above statement should be considered with my previously casted delete vote. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Failed? I still partly stand by WP:INTERVIEW and a couple other people seem to have also noted that. Although, thank you for letting me understand that essays can be quite weak in AfDs. That canvassed (?) user noted that 10-15% of the Source and Daily Trust articles are quotes, and using a word counter that is true, so it is far from primary. You noted that the interviewer is obviously involved, involved in what? Interviewing? Obviously. The policy states only those close to an event are not primary, and the examples given at WP:PRIMARYNEWS are very different.
      That above makes this subject pass WP:GNG, and I located WP:ENT because that is also passed. My point is that the entire company is based on memes and comedy, both based on the social media accounts I could locate and the press coverage. The company has 7 million followers according to El Caribe. Note that the El Caribe article has an interview, but the conclusion is entirely secondary. Finally, you seem to agree that the GQ piece is strong, but you're saying that it is very suspicious when it is still indexed online. I believe our discussion has been robust and productive, though I don't want us to be screaming in each other's faces so I hope we can agree that the baseline here is a draftify, until good more sourcing is discovered. TLAtlak 12:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      GQ website says The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, "cached" or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Good luck with using the GQ article that you think, "I seem to agree that it is a strong piece", Btw nice interpretation of my comments. Entire company is based on memes and comedy and The company has 7 million followers, please proceed to create an article for the company and stop wasting your time here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wonder how that adds to WP:ENT. @I'm tla, your argument on the sources seems not worthy and biased. You jumped from accessing the sources to ENT. If the company is verbally the largest, give me three worthwhile sources (not interview or reporting what the founder had said) that analysed the bigness../or how its was the largest and I will withdraw! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that's the point of a discussion.
      Billboard: 1. world's largest teen media company.
      2. Independent: the startup has been endorsed by several media enthusiasts as a necessary innovation needed to accelerate youth media in Africa.
      2. AMG’s Poybo Africa among the largest youth media companies in Africa, according to Business Insider’s analysis
      4. GQ: a money-making enterprise often deemed the largest of its kind. I'm tla (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not satisfied with that. For independent news, that should be totally not considered. I know how the media works in Nigeria and this article lacks coverage. Seems to be paid additions to news. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is very unclear what you mean by For independent news, that should be totally not considered. By the way, the one source out of the four I cited above that is Nigerian is the Independent. I've given you sources that verify it is indeed the largest. TLAtlak 12:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep… coming as a bulgarian reader who has known 50mMidas (Justin Jin) from YT. No one asked me to come here, I don’t usually care about such situations but something is fixing up. I have seen young dudes whatnot getting sent to Articles for deletion and then seeing a wave of people voting a delete. Maybe when we are all younger in high school we’ve done something cool, been a smart student, maybe got interviewed in the local paper. But there is a difference between that and the teen who starts a business and gets multiple interviews in reliable news sources about it. Starting a business young won't make anyone notable, even making a ton of money or getting a bunch of subs like this guy won't win anyone notability. But having reliable sources write about your business does start to get you genuine notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.68.88 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its good you came as you said. Well, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:INTERVIEWS and see all about them. You argument should be a young teen starting a business is not considered notability because he/she may not be noticeable. But when that teen has appeared on multiple interviews, it shows he/she is notable because it's difficult teens being interviewed. I don't know but that's my interpretation . The article has WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but they are blatantly seeming paid works even. Looking at them, there isn't a coverage, rather ones that do come a time and the other next five days. The argument is that the subject is not notable per WP: ENT and meets no SNG for Wikipedia. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete… Written in a promotional style. Deb (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s eligible if we go with WP:NPOV @Deb ? DIVINE 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you didn't write it from a neutral point of view? Deb (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just curious and asking as you’ve mentioned promotional style. While that falls under [WP:ADV]] #CSD and there was question mark ❓ DIVINE 06:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Promotional article with questionable sources, and the past promotional edits around all of this push me towards delete. Ravensfire (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Maker here. The Justin is notable. Meets GNG due to source assessment way above that I agree. Even if some are interviews that is okay because they have a lot of evaluation. Language of source does not affect reliability according to GNG policy. Also meets #2. of WP : ENT because of starting the biggest teenager media company in the world. Articles for deletion is not for cleanup so if article is written promotionally I’m sorry my English is not the best but that can be fixed with editing. I see new sources are coming out like recent GQ article added and being published continually. Deondernemers (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He does not meet WP:ENT to even assess the #1 and #2 criteria listed on it. The GQ source is useless unless you have written permission from Condé Nast allowing the use of the cached version. He did not create or contribute anything unique, prolific, or innovative as the short videos, reels, relatable content and memes already existed. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after a non-admin closure of "no consensus" was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 27. Any admin may reclose at any time if warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Wasn't going to vote after the last AfD got chatotic originally, but given the controversial previous AfD and the relisting, this isn't ready for mainspace, and as others like TLA have pointed some sources a good, but there may not be enough to establish notability yet given some of the arguments presented by other editors... But there seems to be an indication that this subject could very well pass GNG if more WP/RS become available. Draftification seems to be the most uncontroversial.
Comintell (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Only promotional sources. - Altenmann >talk 01:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Among others, a recent solid profile in The Nation which I mentioned at DR. There's also an exposé in The Independent which is interesting. TLAtlak 01:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- When keeps rule in raw numbers, but their arguments are exceedingly weak, AFDs usually close as no consensus in my experience. So, I feel complelled to note,with no offence intended to the future closer of this, that this AFD has seen an unusually high participation from inexperienced editors and/or IPs. Now one of the known UPE editors who had showed up out of nowhere to challenge deletion has proactively disclosed he was paid $100 to vote keep here[74]. I suspect this article has been created for pay and still may be being held hostage. In light of this, I implore the closer to give special considerations to concerns about sourcing that I and Jeraxmoira have raised at length, and provide weight to the soundness of arguments and correctness or lack thereof in interpretation of policies that have been invoked, even more so than we usually do in AFDs. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:BLP policy, we need to have strong sourcing, and usually, a no consensus on the quality of sourcing should result in deletion of relevant content, which in this case would be the whole article. There have been numerous attempts to put in and to take out this claim for example. Without high quality sourcing, it's against BLP policy to include it, and removing it but keeping the article exacerbates further the WP:NPOV problems which are already close to WP:COVERT, if not already there. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What are the thoughts on this? TLAtlak 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The newspaper seems to be a generally reliable source. However it is based on primary sources with conflicts of interest, i.e. current and former employees, and it's not always clear which claims have been independently verified. It also contains quotes and information pertaining more to Poybo than Jin. So, I think it could be a good starting point, but often unsuitable by itself as we do not include rumours and speculations, and unspecific claims can not summarised in encyclopedic language. I also don't like that it was produced while we were discussing the article here. We first got spammy sources, then paid WP push based on those sources and when it's come to AFD, they've invited the Nation to talk to them and even showed them internal company docs? I think we should wait a few months or however long it takes to see how it develops, whether we get more reliable sources that help us decide what the NPOV view on Jin really is. GNG requires "multiple", "independent" and "significant" coverage. Used with care, I could be persuaded to count this as one on the way to "multiple". We still need a couple more, and their quality and quantity of coverage would have a significant influence on how usable this source turns out to be. If you or anyone else wants to work in draftspace while we wait for developments, I really have no objection to that. That's the standard practice for AFD-deleted articles anyway. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like to add that WP:BLP puts higher requirements on sources. - Altenmann >talk 09:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The byline reads 'Our Reporter'. Here's another article promoting a business school. There is no way to tell the difference between which articles are sponsored and which are not. If they are willing to pay $100 for a vote on this AfD, it is very easy to get an article in the leading news publications as well. A suitable example will be the GQ article that you shared above. I believe it was written just to be archived on the same day and used as a source for Wikipedia. Also, please stop the canvassing. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      With some digging, while very subtle, you can actually check it here. And the GQ article is online again. What you are referring to was also not canvassing, as I was abiding by WP:APPNOTE. TLAtlak 10:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You did not follow what's on WP:APPNOTE: Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. The {{Please see}} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.
      Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users.
      Draftify at AfD Justin Jin
      I see that you are inactive so hopefully this talk page message will notify you. Would you support a draftify at this AfD? Please read the discussion. Also, you can probably ignore the message above, it was added by a now blocked user. - How is this neutral?
      • It is not neutrally worded.
      • Does not have a neutral title.
      • You haven't used the "Please see" template. (If you had done so, it would have been neutrally worded.)
      • You did not leave a note here about the notification you gave to Shewasafairy.
      The Nation (Nigeria) and GQ
      The regular articles and the sponsored articles look exactly the same and no viewer would know that they are sponsored unless you give them the URL that you just found. No reputable news media would do this. Apart from that, The Nation (Nigeria) is accused of spreading fake news stories. How comfortable is it to find the GQ source back online exactly when the AfD was relisted after the DRV and with the updated date? These are all undisclosed paid articles. Most of the keep votes are accounts that are 1 - 8 months old with very little AfD experience( i.e. 0 in-depth analyzed votes on other AfDs)). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jeraxmoira and Usedtobecool. Not convinced the sources are strong enough to meet WP:N.-KH-1 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Because this might be a borderline one, I would support a draftify, and keeping it there until there's better coverage. TLAtlak 16:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North herts premier pool league

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

Article covering a local pool league, no sources, orphan article. Not been updated since 2012, not even correct title format have no idea how this article has slipped through the net.--ParkingTheBus (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources that show notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_4&oldid=1217185162"