The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep and revert to revision from 25 June 2020. There is clear consensus that the article in its current format has serious issues, and something needs to be done. There is general consensus that the version from 25 June 2020 is not perfect, but better than the present. So, reverting per consensus, but note that further discussion on the talk page can modify this decision/the article/etc. for the better as required - and if possible, this happening would be ideal.
Daniel (
talk) 04:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
In short: this is a
WP:COATRACK that takes two very different ideas about economics and shoehorns them into the same article for the trivial reason that the term supercapitalism happens to be a homonym. No reliable sources verify that the two ideas are related or connected in any way, so it's a violation of
no original research to present them together as if they are connected, making a
Frankenstein article. The details below explain why these to ideas that appear superficially similar because they have something to do with economics don't belong together, at least not until we have a quality source that tells us they do. The red flag that makes this an open and shut case is that the only search result that conflates these two things is this very Wikipedia article.
A redirect to Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life is the obvious solution, since that's the most significant and relevant topic, and the article on that book is the proper place to discuss
Robert Reich's ideas. We're here at AfD because when I boldly made that redirect I ran into pushback.
Reich's supercapitalism is a late stage of capitalism that begins after 1970s and is characterized by hyper-competition, maximum consumer choice, maximum access to global markets both as consumers and investors due to the rise of global corporations like Wal-Mart and giant mutual funds and pension funds.
The far less notable prior usage of the term supercapitalism aka "inhuman capitalism" by
Benito Mussolini is conceived to begin around 1900 and is the opposite of what Reich is referring to: the disappearance of free market competition and consumer choice due to rampant
monopolism and
trusts. Mussolini's supercapitalism is the main cause of World War I. "The ideal of super-capitalism would be the standardization of mankind, from the cradle to the coffin. Super-capitalism would like all babies to be born the same length so that cradles could be standardized; all children to want the same toys; all men to wear the same clothes, to read the same books, to like the same films; and everyone to crave a so-called labour-saving machine".
Both ideas share the notion that supercapitalism means expanded corporate power at the expense of the state and of individual citizens, but not in the same way or for the same reasons.
Mussolini's criticisms of monopolism has little modern relevance because it has been superseded by better qualified scholars without the ulterior motives of a fascist demagogue. The economic stages imagined by
Italian Fascism, including the stub
heroic capitalism and supercapitalism, probably should be merged back into the main Italian fascism article, or into a single article about (obsolete) Italian fascist economic thinking. It had no influence on Robert Reich and isn't of serious interest to anybody as economic ideas; they're historical and relevant only to the historical study of Italian fascism. This what we mean by
Coatrack articles: it violates
WP:NPOV to connect the two different things, and it violates
WP:NPOV to say they are related when neither Riech nor any reliable sources even hint that there is any relationship between these two ideas that happen to share the same word.
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)reply
On second thought, i personally prefer reverting to make this article solely about the concept in Italian fascism, so i guess i'll change this to "weak keep". I think merge-ability/lack of notability is a legitimate caveat, however.
Koopinator (
talk) 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)reply
My issue with that is that heroic capitalism makes no sense without understanding the stages the fascists say came before, and "inhuman capitalism" makes no sense out of context of heroic capitalism. If we want an article on that, it needs to be about all these stages, not a string of stubs that treat them in isolation. So not
supercapitalism, perhaps
Italian fascist economic theory or something shorter and catchier. The subject of the Reich book easily meets the criteria of
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: simply look up supercapitalism and, excluding weak google hits, social media, and this very Wikipedia article, instead looking only at quality, reliable sources, they are overwhelmingly about Reich's supercapitalism, because the other one is only of historical relevance. --
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 21:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)reply
DeleteRevert this is blatant
WP:SYNTH, but the history has a version that is not.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 22:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Maybe @
King of Hearts: can comment on their histmerge in May? The article seems to be agglomerating two unrelated topics now.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 22:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Do you have that, you know, diff? Suspense is killing me. --
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 00:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Uh, it's the same diff that Kooptinator linked? That version may have issues, but
WP:SYNTH is not one of them.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 03:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I don't know why it didn't make sense to me before as to which link you meant. Thanks clarifying.
That version appears better at first glance but I think we need to take a close look at the way the citations are used. All of them are
primary sources, words Mussolini & his pals wrote, yet the article has a layer of analysis of what those words mean that isn't in the primary text. All of which is a way of begging the question of the justification for such an article existing: do we have secondary sources to justify an article? The opinions about what the Italian Fascists believed expressed in that version need secondary sources. If we don't have them, then we can't justify this article because those opinions violate the
no original research policy. Which leads back to my point that there is little interest in this topic, demonstrated by the lack of secondary sources. It deserves a couple sentences, maybe a paragraph, in a broader article: "yep, this is what those guys thought, but few care any more so it's not worth saying much about". If someone found sufficient secondary sources, I would be proven wrong. --
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I did a Google Books search and i found 2 secondary sources.[1][2]Koopinator (
talk) 08:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Revert per Kooptinator, but with the see also link on the current version. That is a clear article on a concept that existed historically. Whether Reich's book is about the same thing or not is not within my knowledge; I suspect not. The article on the book reads like a publisher's blurb, but it is probably the best that we will get on a topic with the same name.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep and rewrite with cleanup. Contains interesting ideas about capitalism with some good citations, but inadequacies need to be fixed as pointed out by the users above.
DmitriRomanovJr (
talk) 10:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vaticidalprophet (
talk) 03:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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
Robert Keith Packer#Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt controversy. Closing early per
WP:SNOW. There is near-unanimous consensus that this should not be a standalone article. Opinion is divided about whether any content should be merged or not (and to which article), but a redirect allows editors to find consensus about this through the editorial process. I'm for now redirecting to Packer's article because it already contains extensive content about this topic, unlike the
2021 storming of the United States Capitol article. It's now also a matter for Packer's ongoing AfD to determine whether and where to cover this topic further. Sandstein 09:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This single aspect of the
2021 storming of the United States Capitol fails
WP:NOTNEWS. It was but one aspect of a crazy event, and is not sufficiently its own story. There were also shirts that read "6MWE" (six million wasn't enough). No
WP:LASTING impact of this one particular example of anti-semitism. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 23:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
delete as there is no controversy over whether the shirt is offensive or what it means. If there isn't a sentence or two in the article over specifically antisemitic slogans worn at the Capitol invasion, they can be added, but there's no need for a redirect and certainly no need to include any of the ostentatious padding which this article represents.
Mangoe (
talk) 04:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge the content to
Robert Keith Packer, currently
nominated for deletion also. This content would be
WP:UNDUE in the main 2021 storming article so a merge to the event article would cut this content. We should keep it in some form, and I prefer the biography to an event article. In the biography deletion discussion I argued that this event is part of three stories: the Capitol storm, the state of Antisemitism, and sales policy of stores with political products. There are multiple media perspectives published now and we can reasonably expect future coverage including the outcome of the court case.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: As the creator of this article (who created it before realising Packer's article existed), I'll just say that most of the content here is mentioned in his article. I was personally was hoping that the merge would be the other way around, but that seems unlikely now. I do agree that merging the content in Packer's article to the main one would make the main article even lengthy and unreadable though. --
Bangalamania (
talk) 21:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, maybe rewrite and merge some of the content but this wouldn't be terribly useful as a redirect, either.
Elliot321 (
talk |
contribs) 01:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:TENYEARTEST. This should be dealt with in the main article about the storming if at all. There have been far too many of these fork articles of questionable value.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk) 06:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge, although to which article is up to the closing admin. Far too much
WP:UNDUE.
Bearian (
talk) 23:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete & Redirect per
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:UNDUE... first, there is no real controversy here, merely a momentary trend of general dislike that spread across the internet... second, 15 minutes of attention (not exactly fame) because some guy wore some shirt and happened to be on the news is in no way encyclopedic... he personally fails
WP:BLP1E, and his choice of clothing should barely garner a mention on the main article under "part of why he was arrested"... also per
WP:TENYEARTEST (per
Darryl Kerrigan), no one will remember him or his poor taste in clothing... -
Adolphus79 (
talk) 02:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep This got a lot of media attention that is not dying away quickly. The main article is too big as it is. But if it is merged, it remains a big deal and should get a couple of paragraphs, not a couple of sentences. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 08:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sandstein 10:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Short-lived political party that never ran any candidates. What little interest it received was due to the involvement of
Robert Dutil, a former cabinet minister, but there's so little to say about this party that it can be mentioned on his article (in fact, it is). Perhaps tellingly, the party does not have a corresponding page on the French Wikipedia.
I would have PRODed this but I wanted to check if anyone thinks there's anything worth merging. —
Kawnhr (
talk) 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Political parties don't get an automatic notability freebie just because it's possible to technically verify that they exist(ed) — the notability test requires
reliable source coverage attesting to some form of political impact. Nominator is entirely correct that what little we actually need or can properly source about this party can be contained entirely within Dutil's existing BLP, without needing a standalone article.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, more information could be built about the subject at
Robert Dutil but I don't see anything here that cries out to be merged. -
Astrophobe (
talk) 03:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 debated calling this "no consensus" due to the number of users arguing for deletion, but the article has seen significant improvement since the nomination and no one has argued for deletion since the bulk of the sources were added. In either case, the outcome is the same. —
The Earwigtalk 06:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete it is high time that we started applying verifiability guidelines and deleted all unsourced content.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
...@
Johnpacklambert:, you're doing it again. The verifiability policy (it's not a mere guideline)
only requires that sources exist. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. It does not require that sources be in the article. Only BLPs require that. Please be more careful about the claims you make in your !votes at AfD. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
this is a rubbish policy and you know it. Verrifiability should require that the sources be in the article. We need to end this hand waving to claim otherwise. The sourcing here is clearly not enough to justify an article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't, but it doesn't, and to claim otherwise is not compliant with policy. I happen to agree with you that the relevant policies and guidelines are not met here, but please be more careful in the future about these claims because this is by far not the first time I've seen this sort of !vote from you. !Vote policy, not how you think things should be, even if those produce the same result. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The Bushranger, Mr. Lambert is correct here. Per
WP:V, "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source", and "the burden to demonstrate verifiability (...) is satisfied by providing an inline citation". This does mean that sources must be cited in the article, not merely exist. The text you cite is where WP:V summarizes another policy,
WP:NOR. Sandstein 20:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete; unverifiable as discussed above. Redirection is pointless as long as Larson is unverifiable and not mentioned in the target article. Sandstein 20:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Larson became a brigadier general in the North Dakota Air National Guard postwar thus meeting
WP:SOLDIER #2 and was inducted into the North Dakota Aviation Hall of Fame. Should be moved to Duane S. Larson to remove typo from the article title.
Kges1901 (
talk) 18:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as a general officer per
WP:SOLDIER #2. Article needs renaming though. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891TalkWork 23:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Lettlerhello •
contribs 22:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, per the sources, that clearly verify the guy existed, which have been added since nomination. He was a brigadier general, the article is well-written, and the man's been dead for fifteen years (in fact, he died two years before the article was started). Can't he rest in peace? jp×g 16:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - meets NSOLDIER as he held the rank of Brigadier General, equivalent to Air Commodore, explicitly stated in the Air Officer article, which is explicitly stated in NSOLDIER. WP:V is met on several fronts, as is WP:GNG, satisfying WP:N. With WP:V met, and WP:N met, Wikipedia is clearly improved if we have an article on this topic.
AfD is not cleanup, but I am going through the sources, and will remove any material failing WP:V.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
P.S. Article indeed needs to be renamed, getting rid of the nickname and correcting his first name, but so as to avoid confusion by bots and humans, will not do so until this AfD is closed.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 19:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Short-lived political party that was effectively a one-man show (its only candidate was its founder) and folded during the election. As the man in question,
William Bayley, passes GNG, and as the party's only claim to fame is his involvement, I suggest merging this page into
William Bayley. —
Kawnhr (
talk) 23:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge As the party is mentioned in
William Bayley and the fact that it consisted of 1 person is kinda curious (even though I believe it's not the only case in the world) I believe merging would be a doog option.
Less Unless (
talk) 11:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge As above explained.
Sliekid (
talk) 09:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). —
The Earwigtalk 06:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Possible
hoax. Was proposed by deletion by
GreyDynamite but
deprodded by
Ram1055 because the single source is an academic database, but as far as I can tell it does not discuss the attack at all (article is about a 1980 attack in Lyon and source is about a 1983 attack in Marseilles). Struggling to find a single reference online that is not copying from Wikipedia. —
The Earwigtalk 23:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Apologies, I was too hasty and did not perform a proper
WP:BEFORE search. I found the actual mention in the database; the source was probably copied incorrectly:
[1][2]. Also some book mentions:
[3][4]. I do not believe this is a hoax. However, I still can't find much beyond passing mentions, so I am not sure this meets the
notability guideline for events. —
The Earwigtalk 00:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
However, the web source does not give the same number of casualties as the Wikipedia article does. It says there were no deaths and only 4 injuries. Strangely, the book source does mention two deaths. -
GreyDynamite (
talk) 00:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Not a hoax. I've added citations I found: an AP article appearing in multiple US newspapers and a French article. So, obviously, oppose deletion.
Brad (
talk) 05:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Great finds,
Brad. I'm withdrawing the nomination. —
The Earwigtalk 06:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Defunct political party that never ran any candidates during its short existence, nor received any mainstream coverage. —
Kawnhr (
talk) 23:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing about it at all aside from six (6) namedrops on ProQuest, none of which provide any info besides its name.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!) 23:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Really wanted to save this article just because I thought the concept was cool, but I could not find any reliable sources that covered it in depth. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 16:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. Initial rationale was Fails
WP:LISTN and does not meet any relevant inclusion criteria; there is no evidence to suggest that winning the national domestic league 30 times is any more significant than winning it any other amount of times.
Contested by article creator Welcome , Dear Admins , im created this article To clarify the list of clubs that are most winning in the local leagues around the world, and i have set a barrier of 30 titles to show the value of some of the major clubs. I ask from your administration to allow me continued writing on this page, and I can editing or changing the name of this article (about number of titles) and make it open without limits to be more logic.
In my view, this is comparing apples and oranges by treating all domestic leagues as equivalents. Also, there is a distinct lack of sources comparing the clubs in this way and I can't find any sources that use 30 as the benchmark either. It seems quite arbitrary and not suitable for a general encyclopaedia. It might be more appropriate on a football stats/trivia website.
Spiderone 22:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Spiderone 22:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I do not disagree with you in your point of view, but also in Wikipedia, our Used to delve into the information and clarify more details. For example, in the pages of some British clubs such as Rangers of Scotland and Linfield from Northern Ireland, I found an information indication that these clubs are the most winning local leagues in the world, so I was inspired by the idea of collecting the most winning clubs in the world and including them on a special page after the encyclopedia allows me regardless of the importance of the leagues I just wanted to give importance to the clubs that won a large number of titles without entering into other comparisons. I also do not have the ability to write in another important site such as Wikipedia to express details and information in this way. Therefore, I repeat my request regarding approval of this address. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Anas88mohammed (
talk •
contribs) 09:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Moving this from the article talk page.
Spiderone 16:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Anas88mohammed - please post any comments relating to the notability of this topic on this page so everyone can see it.
Spiderone 16:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
In response to your comment, I understand your motives behind creating the topic; it seems like you feel that the topic is underrepresented in the media and it's obviously of personal interest to you. In this case, I feel that the lack of coverage that this topic receives in reliable sources is actually a reason not to have the article. I'm sorry to be 'that guy' but I feel that this violates
WP:NOT, in particular
WP:FORUM; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and topics created should be reflected in coverage from the experts (i.e. reliable sources).
Spiderone 16:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - what a bizarre topic and article title. No evidence of notability.
GiantSnowman 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - as mentioned above, OR and arbitrary cut-off. Also not comparing like with like - while England has had a national league since 1888, Germany has only had one since 1963, so German clubs have not had anywhere near the same opportunity to rack up 30 league titles. And Wales has only had a national league since 1992, so even if the same club had won the league every single year of the league's existence it still wouldn't have reached 30 wins........ --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 09:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
2021 (UTC)
Delete As per all above.
Sliekid (
talk) 09:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename The list itself is interesting and useful (especially because the last one was deleted for no reason) and there are anough sources to compile it. But the title is too arbitrary and it should be improved.
Ludost Mlačani (
talk) 11:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The previous list was deleted due to a complete lack of evidence that there are independent sources reporting significantly on this topic. This list has similar issues and it being interesting and useful is, unfortunately, a matter of personal opinion and not based on any Wikipedia inclusion guideline, in my view.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete both. According to edit histories, thee creator of both pages is clearly an SPA made for promotional purposes.--
Bettydaisies (
talk) 03:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete As per nom. Fails verifiability.
Lidsdonne (
talk) 13:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as neither article has the reliable, verifiable in-depth sources needed to establish notability.
Alansohn (
talk) 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - he does not even pass
WP:GNG; both man and company are
ordinary.
Bearian (
talk) 01:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete both as they fail our notability guidelines.
HighKing++ 15:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article (deprodded in 2012) doesn't approach notability under
WP:ORG. The only sources are a link to the school's website and an unrelated Wikipedia article about St. Thomas More. Nothing better is available online. This school is quite patently
run-of-the-mill. There's no obvious place to redirect to, either:
Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford contains no pertinent content. It appears that deletion is the best option.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 21:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect, but the target? If this is a diocian school, it should be redirected to the diocese. If it's a parochial school, it should be redirected to the settlement. In no case should it be merged or redirected to another school's article.
174.254.192.236 (
talk) 18:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford due to this lacking notability, but still being worth a redirect IMO. Not a merge though, because there's zero point in merging badly sourced, run of the mill things like mentions of annual turkey raffles. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 09:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Adamant1, there is no content whatsoever in the diocese article now regarding elementary education. A list of elementary schools will need to be added. That's the extent of "merge" I'd support.
174.254.192.246 (
talk) 19:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with a list of elementary schools and maybe a brief mention of this one. That doesn't take the article being merged though. Which retains the articles edit history, Etc. Etc. Since you could literally just make the list and mention it in the article right now without merging it. Merges are more appropriate IMO when there is more content then can be easily re-written in a single edit and also when the edit history of the merged article is worth preserving. Nether is the case here though. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 01:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Briefly merge or redirect somewhere - either to the high school or diocese. Primary schools are generally NN, and this one is apparently no exception.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Peterkingiron, there's a pretty clear consensus that the subject isn't notable, and nearly as clear a consensus that the page shouldn't be deleted. The remaining questions are how much content should be moved and where it should be moved to. Wikipedia has excellent coverage of the structures of the Catholic Church in the US and due to this, historically we've covered Catholic elementary education in the article on the individual school's owner if it exists. Settlement articles on small cities should generally include listings of schools. Either the diocese or Elgin could be an appropriate target, but neither is now as neither has any content AT ALL on this subject...help, please?
174.254.192.246 (
talk) 19:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford. Subject lacks SIGCOV from IS RS for a stand alone article. A list of elementary schools should be added to the target and this should be redirected there. //
Timothy ::
talk 04:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Daniel (
talk) 13:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This article is about someone whose notoriety does not warrant inclusion in an article and its content is phrased as a list of accomplishments to brag about, not anything he's done for the greater good. It reads like a work biography, not a factual article.
Bikerred62 (
talk) 21:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete failed city candidates are virutally never notable. On the grand scale this is also true for successful ones, but even more so for failed ones.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in city council elections, and nothing else here indicates that he would pass our notability criteria in some other field independent of his candidacy.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't think current sourcing, or other references I could find justifies a separate article from
Nonie Darwish, the groups leader. All sourcing I could find on the topic essentially states that "Nonie Darwish is the founder of Arabs for Israel", but has nothing else to state on the organisation.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 21:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete The "organization" doesn't exist and has never existed. Her domain, arabsforisrael.com, which used to be a blogspot blog, has now been taken over my domain squatters. It should take more than running an infrequently updated blogspot blog to be included in Wikipedia.
ImTheIP (
talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The Wayback Machine shows that the website was indeed a blogspot blog from approximately 2011 onwards. However, it did have a normal, though fairly bare website from 2004- to c.2009, as can be seen in
2004 and
2006. The only content I can find on it other than the mission statement are sympathetic emails purportedly sent to Darwish by various individuals, as well as a handful of essays in the 2006 version by Darwish and various authors including
Richard Benkin. Still nothing that indicates notability however.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 21:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - the Blogspot page (
http://arabsforisrael.blogspot.com/) directs users to "For the most recent articles and appearances by Nonie Darwish, please visit the site www.NonieDarwish.org." Not a legitimate group, just a front group / corporate shell for Nonie Darwish.
IHateAccounts (
talk) 22:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Not separately notable from
Nonie Darwish, and too generic a phrase to be a good redirect.
XOR'easter (
talk) 02:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete and not redirect, per XOReaster.VRtalk 04:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete As per all above.
Lidsdonne (
talk) 13:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to Nonie Darwish. Base on
WP:RS such as the Jerusalem Post cited in this article, the organization has existed.
Marokwitz (
talk) 11:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, or merge any well-sourced and neutral information which exists here and not at
Nonie Darwish. warmly,
ezlev.talk 05:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Might need to fast track this one again. Non-notable per guideline
WP:N. A
WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing. Condensing my condensed version of my evaluation for those sensitive to too many characters. Blah, blah, delete. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete – the article creator created a draft that was rejected several times in AfC if memory serves, before having it deleted earlier today. This is no more notable than the draft was. As pointed out the article creator, the sources are press releases, in fact, there are three copies of the same press release in there, and it is rather hilarious to see how the same press release was apparently pushed out in two subsequent years –
here he "avows" that "...the year 2019 has been good for him so far. “I have pushed out some contents this year [...]"" and
here and
here he "disclosed" that "...2020 has been a fruitful year for him. Speaking on that he shares, “I have pushed out some contents this year [...]" ". If we were not sure whether he was notable or not, that clinches it. --bonadeacontributionstalk 22:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per all of the above; also, the article is clearly intended to promote and is written like a CV
Spiderone 23:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, Per above, does not meet notability.
Alex-h (
talk) 10:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, no significant coverage.
Peter303x (
talk) 02:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Kolma8 (
talk) 19:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Didn't happen, and not notable. This non event doesn't need an article just because the event normally does
Joseph2302 (
talk) 20:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree this is sensible, but when I speedy redirected, I got reverted which is why I started this AFD.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 08:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
BD2412T 04:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:BAND. Has releases, but too few on a too low level.
Geschichte (
talk) 20:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:BAND. After removal of a 404'd citation, remaining three sources do not constitute the requisite coverage, and there is no proof that any of the other criteria for
WP:BAND are met.
Insurance Lovers (
talk) 21:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Not qualifies in WP:GNG.
Lidsdonne (
talk) 13:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - They appear to have had an album in the top ten of the Norwegian charts. Would this signify some notability?
Foxnpichu (
talk) 21:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That would pass criteria 2 of
WP: NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) but it needs to proven and it isn't sourced in the article, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - band doesn't appear to meet
WP:GNG and the claim to meeting NMUSIC is looking like it's false
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. It appears unlikely that relisting would yield a consensus for deletion.
BD2412T 04:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
As the article stands at present this is an unsourced biography of a living person. None of the claims here give default notability, they require multiple sources to show that the particular winning of a beauty contests was notable, and that her roles as a broadcast journalist were notable, both of which are lacking at present
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:BEFORE search reveals no significant coverage in any reliable or independent sources. Fails the notability guideline
WP:N and Wikipedia is not...
WP:NOT. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 20:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Drafity. A quick search shows that she's been mentioned by major news outlets like Oricon and Sports Nippon. Her Japanese Wikipedia page shows she's made a lot of media appearances in magazines and televisions. I'm willing to give this article a chance but these media appearances need to be backed up by sources otherwise I'd support deletion.
lullabying * :::(
talk) 22:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep She is a winner of
Miss Nippon; that's a significant achievement if not a nobel prize. She also had some career afterward; so these seem enough for notability. The sourcing needs to be improved; not a reason for deletion. --
Taku (
talk) 00:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator
Johnpacklambert, if you are going to continue to nominate articles for deletion, or to weigh in at articles for deletion, here is something you should know. Complying with
WP:BEFORE quickly grows complicated for BLP individuals who have multiple names, or whose names are in foreign languages. You can't rely on the suggested seaches that AFD guesses you will need. Your BEFORE compliance requires you to include their nicknames, their foreign names. In addition, if the article name includes disambiguation, you have to rewrite the google search terms to take the disambiguation into account.
Geo Swan (
talk) 04:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:SIGCOV. As winner of a major beauty contest, she has gotten lots of coverage.
Bearian (
talk) 01:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep due to nominator's failure to comply with
WP:BEFORE. I
made a number of additions.
Geo Swan (
talk) 06:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
French industrial black metal project. The article was created in 2014, and since then it is tagged for notability and sources. The sourcing is not the best, and that's me being polite. An interview on an unreliable looking site, and bandcamp. Not satisfied. But anyways, during a google search I couldn't find anything that establishes notability. Only the usual databases, youtube videos, streaming links and lots of blogs. I have found several album reviews but they are featured on said blogs. There is no article about this in frwiki either. So, in my opinion, this is not notable, but as always, I am happy to be proven wrong. (And yes, I know that Avantgarde Music is a notable label, so at least one aspect of notability is completed. But the sourcing is always more important, in my opinion.)
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Clearly a fairly
prolific referee in tiers 2-4 of England but that alone does not make him notable by default. I did not find any sources exploring him in depth during a search of Google and Gnews. ProQuest was slightly better; I found
this and
this but, in my view, these articles do not add enough depth to build a biography from. Newspaper articles where a referee is only mentioned briefly because they made a controversial decision is arguably trivial coverage. I do not believe he meets any reasonable interpretation of
WP:BASIC/
WP:GNG, the former clearly says trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
Spiderone 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Spiderone 20:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete just because he is prolific at low level of competition does not make him notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG.
GiantSnowman 22:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not seeing enough evidence to justify an article; does not seem to meet the standards of
WP:GNG/
WP:BASIC. A
WP:BEFORE search revealed some sensationalism from The Sun and Daily Mirror about being 'sacked' but this isn't supported by any reliable sources. The only other claim to notability is for not giving a yellow card to
Billy Sharp but this incident, alone, did not get enough coverage, in my view, to make him pass GNG.
Spiderone 19:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Spiderone 19:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Only coverage in RS is mentions from the Sharp game which is not good enough for GNG.
SK2242 (
talk) 20:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG.
GiantSnowman 22:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Pretty much nothing about either of these webcomics anywhere.
SK2242 (
talk) 20:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I wasn't able to find any independent information on this comic beyond the trivial mention at collegeotr.com.
HenryCrun15 (
talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Interesting, but there's zero coverage in
reliable sources such as newspapers.
Bearian (
talk) 01:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Daniel (
talk) 13:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Discogs is not a reliable source, and there are no other sources (other than the official site and the official fanclub, but those are cited as external links, and they are no support for notability either). The Portuguese article cites a (now) dead link as a source. Couldn't find anything during a search that establishes notability. Only the standard, usual junk sites like youtube, download and lyrics sites, retail sites, facebook and other social media and streaming sites. No evidence of notability. The article was created way back in 2006, and notability hasn't been proven ever since.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk) 20:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: Hello,
I tried as a member of Eurodance Music Fan clun in Brasil to update the article. Unfortunatly it was believed there was no Source and the entire Article was deleted.
For Dance Music Scene in Brazil, Dalimas was the biggest Dance Music Group, with Building Records. THe Record Label doenst exist anymore, but the Groupe was very relevant for the National Dance Music.
Me as a Fan am very sad that you are deleting the information writen in 2006. Maybe in US or Canada you dont understand it. Building Records was the biggest National Dance Music Label in Brasil.
The article was writen in 2006, when the group presented on PLANET POP FESTIVAL in Sao Paulo.
Here are some Sources. At that time INternet wasnt like it is now, and many articles are still print.
GA Pop Dance, none of these sources show in-depth coverage. Let me go through them one by one. All these sources focus on Abramoff not on the band. This does not prove at all that this band is notable.
HickoryOughtShirt?4 (
talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
1) The first reference is a 3 minute Youtube link of a performance
2) This is an interview with Abramoff which a) is
WP:PRIMARY and b) not in-depth coverage of this band
3) Once again, focuses just on Abramoff
4)Once again, focuses just on Abramoff
5)Another interview, just on Abramoff
6)404 Error
7)3 paragraphs, just on Abramoff
8)404 error
9) 404 error
10) 404 error
11)Abramoff
12) Need a page number
13)Abramoff
Delete: Not a single source covering them in-depth. Clear
WP:SOAPBOX attempt.
SirEdimonDimmi!!! 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Plus, on pt.WP this same article was created by an
blocked sock, so it's very likely that socks are involved here too.--
SirEdimonDimmi!!! 23:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, but I strongly disagree that it's as obvious a delete as others have suggested. After searching extensively in Portuguese I believe that Gisele Abramoff should have a page, but not Dalimas. I keep finding coverage of Abramoff that would almost certainly pass GNG, but basically nothing that treats Dalimas in anything more than passing fashion. This is a bit tantalizing, because the band dissolved in 2007, before a lot of Brasilian culture magazines were publishing online, and I think it's very possible that someone with the right access to offline portuguese-language sources could put together a good GNG argument. I was also intrigued by the fact that the Portuguese page asserts that at one point Dalimas became one of the most famous dance music bands in Brazil, with lots of hints at a
WP:BAND 7 argument that it exemplifies early 21st century Brazilian electronica, but that claim has had a citation needed tag for almost 4 years now. Dalimas was described in some depth in
this magazine article from 2019, and there it is referred to as a success, and one of the main national projects of a large record label, but it's not really in depth, and anyhow I can't find a second similar source. Finally, only 1 award is named for Dalimas, and it's
one of 31 annual awards given by a magazine that itself does not appear to be particularly prominent. So I think it's a delete, but in the long term what I would really like to see is a page at
Gisele Abramoff that covers some content related to Dalimas, with a redirect from
Dalimas to that page. -
Astrophobe (
talk) 02:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, most sources I could find focus on Gisele Abramoff, so maybe she's notable, but the group is not.
Victor LopesFala!•
C 16:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sandstein 10:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Non encyclopedic cross categorisation and complex list criteria.
Ajf773 (
talk) 23:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. It's interesting, useful, and beautifully presented, but the lack of sourcing makes me reluctant to support.
Cbl62 (
talk) 18:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sandstein 10:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This is essentially the same article as
Zero Trust Networks with a new name that is not used for this type of thing (cognitive trust is a psychology concept). Original author had the username of ECT, which is a company that "created" the concept of Cognitive Trust (Elisity Cognitive Trust). ...discospinstertalk 18:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: I think this article is pretty blatant advertising, created by a single purpose account. It would have to be completely rewritted to be encyclopedic.
Bensci54 (
talk) 17:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep while the concept was created by Elisity, it is still a very relevant concept in the cyber-security world, and is being implemented by leading organizations across the globe. It will be recognized by several reputable organizations (like gartner) in the near future, and does in fact enhance the capabilities of the traditional zero trust architecture. The article is being edited to be more encyclopedic now, and less promotional. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:280:4600:55D0:A440:55F5:4A39:C85C (
talk) 00:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Apparently this is essentially a variant of
Zero Trust Networks, and not appropriate for a separate article. DGG (
talk ) 02:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete A
WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing of note or attention worthy. Nothing I see reaches the bar of notability as set by the confines of the notability guideline
WP:N.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tsistunagiska (
talk •
contribs) 18:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Not opposed to a redirect should that be the closers decision. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 19:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect as suggested: reasonable and
WP:CHEAP.
Bearian (
talk) 01:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect. As per above suggested.
Setreis (
talk) 08:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Daniel (
talk) 13:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Contested PROD but no reason provided. Does not meet any inclusion guideline; assistant directors and crew members are not notable by default and would need to meet
WP:BASIC or
WP:GNG. Also
WP:NOTINHERITED; notability is not inherited from famous parents. Changing to a redirect could be tricky as there is not one clear and obvious redirect target (I would argue both parents are equally notable).
I could not find multiple sources covering Disha Jha in any great depth during a
WP:BEFORE search.
Spiderone 18:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives coverage that is sufficiently great or important enough to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails
WP:N in those regards. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 18:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:NACTOR and
WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable media.
Walrus Ji (
talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - she's gotten quite a lot of media attention because she's the
trust fund baby of notable, creative people.
Bearian (
talk) 01:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I would argue that this could be mentioned in the articles of the parents but doesn't necessarily do enough to substantiate an article on Disha Jha. She is essentially still just an apprentice/production assistant/costume supervisor who happens to have famous parents
Spiderone 17:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete no significant coverage.
Peter303x (
talk) 02:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to
WP:GNG for this book, and would suggest that we restore the redirect back to its notable author,
Jack Canfield. Searching online, the book appears to be a hit with unreliable Forbes contributors, but I was not able to find significant coverage. Here's my assessment of the citations provided in the article:
[10] Q&A interview with the author, note that the main focus of the interview is Canfield's other work and only Canfield actually mentions The Success Principles
[11] The author describes Canfield as his "good friend", not independent
[12] List of 12 books with only a short paragraph devoted to The Success Principles, and the source looks to be of dubious reliability to boot
[13] Arguably the best source cited, although the unmitigated praise leaves me a little dubious of its reliability (e.g. a revised and updated edition of this masterpiece has been released in 2015 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of its first publication. The book’s practical and inspiring words have certainly helped thousands of its readers to see success in a different light.). The off-the-beaten path source (an English language Cambodian paper for a book published in the US?) also raises some concerns signed, Rosguilltalk 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete As per Rosguill.
Akronowner (
talk) 18:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Akronowner,
Cupper52, n.b. that I'm suggesting to redirect the article, not delete it. You may want to change either your !vote (if you agree with me) or your rationale (if you don't) accordingly. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect - as per Rosguill's suggestion. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass
WP:GNG, and doesn't meet
WP:NBOOK.
Onel5969TT me 18:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to the author as suggested. I'm ok with redirects where applicable. The subject fails notability and should not have a stand alone article. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 19:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is clear at this time that this topic constitutes a
non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization, has elements of original research, and may be in violation of BLP policies.
WP:SNOW close at this time. North America1000 14:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
It could be a good trivia bit and good for a
WP:DYK on the main page, but from the vibe I'm getting, this fact probably belongs better on his page, provided there is verification.--
WuTang94 (
talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Of course if there are inaccuracies the viable option is to
WP:FIXIT rather than delete the article.
Bus stop (
talk) 17:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Kolma8 (
talk) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete There is nothing really useful about this list.
JayJayWhat did I do? 19:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This is an irregular grouping, all the more so since some of the people on this list have white ancestry (and a few may have black ancestry as well). Some of these people have very complex ancestry. Anyway, I do not think many people like seeing their Hispanic/Pacific Islander/Asian ancestry grouped as "non-White, non-Black". Especially since on a world scale Hispanic/Asian/Pacific Islanders far outnumber blacks and white combined.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Good point. Deciding what to name this article was a very awkward process to begin with. My sincerest apologies if this has offended anyone.--
WuTang94 (
talk) 23:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete agreed that its largely uncited.
Peter303x (
talk) 21:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
As the creator of this list, there was better sourcing at the beginning (even if it was just a select number of sources), but eventually, it evolved into a mostly unsourced list after further edits by other users. It's probably too tedious to go back and source every quarterback at this point so I'm fine with this list being huffed. It's also just a "nice to have" list, but can go if it doesn't provide much real value and if most users want it gone. Maybe quarterbacks such as
Tom Flores (first Latino QB in NFL) and
Roman Gabriel (first Asian QB in NFL) could have side notes on their own individual pages if it's not there already, as there should be verified sources on them.--
WuTang94 (
talk) 23:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it's automatically notable.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as a non-notable cross categorisation.
Ajf773 (
talk) 23:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:LISTN as the grouping is not discussed enough in reliable sources.—
Bagumba (
talk) 09:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Daniel (
talk) 13:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Article about a non-notable actor that has been moved to draft twice and speedily deleted once, all very recently. The creator created this article under a new name adding "(actor)" at the end. Fails
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG, as the references are either useless or say nothing about the actor, just projects they have participated in. I also cannot find anything on them when I look them up myself (in fact, it says "no results").
Coreykai (
talk) 17:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt Reads like a promotional article as well.
Lettlerhello •
contribs 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Do it slowly.
Kolma8 (
talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, delete, delete, delete..is this like the fourth time? Doesn't meet the notability guideline all day and night every day forever and ever and ever, even the imaginary one the fairy outside my window secretly whispered to me. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - (Article creator.) I wasn't notified about this? I think I requested previous deletions of draft. Recreated when found additional citations. There are more I haven't included, such as
https://www.broadwayworld.com/people/Charles-Grant/,
https://portlandplayhouse.org/staff-member/charles-grant/,
https://artistsrep.org/artists/charles-grant/, but not sure if they help? I thought "Matter" at the Portland Playhouse and its buzz and its relation to the "Black Lives Matter" movement warranted conclusion via
WP:CREATIVE, but if not may I suggest a page for that instead and/or the Portland Playhouse? I added the "(actor)" and "Lamar" parts (per IMDB) to distinguish from other Charles Grant (another actor and a writer). --
HistoricalAccountings (
talk) 21:36, 15 January 2021
WP:NACTOR - Has had significant roles in multiple notable stage performances or other productions / Has made unique, or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (MATTER). I will go along with consensus obviously and won't resubmit whatever the decision, but obviously I vote to keep.
HistoricalAccountings (
talk) 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete not even close to being a notable actor.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article is just a list of credits. If you want to write an encyclopedia article, you need to write narrative paragraphs that tell a biographical story sourced to reliable published third-party sources that explain the person's encyclopedic importance. --
Ssilvers (
talk) 03:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Salt if the consensus is ignored again.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. No good references and looks almost promotional. I can definitely see room for improvement though, if the tone of voice of the article changes and more appropriate references added, then my vote would change.
CAVETOWNFAN (
talk) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is mostly written in the future tense for the potential for Barcelona to host the winter Olympic games in 2026. However, they are being held in Milano-Cortina, Italy. As such, this article fails
WP:CRYSTAL with a touch of
WP:NOTNEWS. One reference is dead and the other is a news article of
WP:ROUTINE coverage of a future plan. Either way, Barcelona did not get the Olympics rendering the speculation in the article moot.
Jip Orlando (
talk) 17:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete in addition to the above,
WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have a notability guideline to follow. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 19:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Kolma8 (
talk) 19:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NMUSIC. It's a single by a notable artist, but there is no significant coverage, it never charted, received no awards. Aside from that, the article is unsourced and consists mostly of some OR on the lyrical content.
Lennart97 (
talk) 17:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Yeah I don't mind you removing it. When I first created it, I knew nothing about how to add sources at the time.
BrothaTimothy (
talk·contribs) 17:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Tagged for notability since 2015. –
Cupper52Discuss! 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives coverage that is sufficiently great or important enough to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails
WP:N in those regards. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 18:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Tsistunagiska: Just wondering, do you post this same paragraph at every deletion discussion? Honestly, I don't see the point of that, as it doesn't demonstrate that you've actually looked into the specific article up for discussion (although I obviously assume that you have). Additionally, I assume everyone here knows how notability works, so there's no need for you to explain that in your vote.
Lennart97 (
talk) 19:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Lennart97, could you point in a different direction while assuming, please and thank you? ;-) --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 19:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Sorry, can you tell me what I assumed in which direction?
Lennart97 (
talk) 19:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I was busy looking up other topics so I missed it but the evidence was left all over my screen when I returned. :-\
Lennart97 (
talk) 19:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC) is your signature, right? --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 19:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I think they're just saying you can just link to
WP:GNG rather than copy/pasting its contents like this. Especially in clear cut situations like this. You don't need to go into great detail about what significant coverage means when there's no sourcing at all currently present.
Sergecross73msg me 19:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the tip. I think I'll stick with stating facts. People keep proving that they don't really understand notability. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 19:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Tsistunagiska: If by 'stating facts' you mean your current approach, please don't. Concerning People keep proving that they don't really understand notability.: assuming incompetence is no better than assuming bad faith. Also, why did you think it's okay to use my signature? It's not, please don't ever do that again.
Lennart97 (
talk) 20:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
You don't have to tag me, it's a waste of extra time on your part since I see every post here anyway. In regards to what I wrote here, prove anything I said as false and I will acknowledge it, otherwise, if you just don't like what I write then offer your !vote and move on. Why did you think it was ok to ever say anything directly to me in your condescending tone to begin with? If you can't take it back at you then don't bring it in the first place. Buh bye, now. Have a nice day! --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Needlessly aggressive response, both here and below. You could have simply acknowledged, or even ignored, my initial comment to your vote, but you chose not to, and then you chose to use my signature for reasons still unclear to me, which I still ask you to explain.
Lennart97 (
talk) 21:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Really, I mean, really?? You tag me, aggressively, and then expect me not to respond at all? Why did you tag me in the first place? Did you honestly believe anything you said was going to change my opinion? Let me answer that for you. No. You did it because you like to throw your opinions at others and get offended when they respond to you in kind. In regards to your signature, you acted puzzled that I commented on your assuming in a certain direction and I was sore afraid that your account had possibly been hacked and I wanted to confirm that it was, in fact, your signature and you did make assumptions in my direction which you subsequently confirmed to my overwhelming relief. I have no reason to post your signature anymore since I know it is you. Take care and be safe --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 21:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I'll just leave
this here and
this. Good luck with that.
Lennart97 (
talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
No one has said you're wrong, they're just saying it's excessive. Please don't take it so personally. We all have the same stance overall, so there's no need to fight.
Sergecross73msg me 21:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Seriously? While I appreciate your opinion I find it hard to take serious considering we have examples of mounds of text written on AfD's but I have never seen any of you comment on those. I'm so sorry my six sentence condensed explanation of the facts about the criteria we are supposed to evaluate every article by is affecting you all in such a negative way. I'll take your well-being into consideration going forward. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 21:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I follow. I dont recall ever interacting with you at AFD before, so I'm puzzled that you have criticisms on my past comments at AFD. Regardless, it has no bearing on this AFDs outcome, and you seem to have no interest in not taking things personally, so I will leave you be. Take care.
Sergecross73msg me 21:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Now I'm puzzled. I never criticized your comments on the actual article or on any other article. I only pointed to the obvious singling out of my condensed version of the usual wall of text you see other editors put on AfD's that I have never seen the two of you comment on before. Also pointing out that your comments on my evaluation has nothing to do with the validity of the discussion so it was kinda pointless to ever bring up on your part. But I agree, take care and be safe. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 21:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - As is, is nothing more than an unsourced stub full of
WP:OR. No problem with it being recreated if someone actually does dig up sources, but I'm not particularly certain it's coming with such an old song.
Sergecross73msg me 20:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per
Tsistunagiska. No significant coverage found in entertainment Proquest database.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk) 13:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete completely unsourced and currently loaded with
WP:OR. No significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, no charting, no certifications.
Ashleyyoursmile! 15:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Here, My Dear. As a single, not many sources that I could find, other than the ones I added to the article. We should also incorporate The New York Times review by
Robert Palmer (I don't have a subscription) when it is moved.
WP:Preserve7&6=thirteen (
☎) 15:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability not established, very short article with only one source from 1862.
PatGallacher (
talk) 17:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I have cited some more sources (from 1970 and 1901) that have a few dozen words each about the subject.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge That's the kind of information that Wikipedia is great to provide! North (1963), Haensel-Berichte (1978) and
NEFA tell the same story. So this should definitely be
WP:PRESERVED. In the previews, however, I did not see content to much expand the existing article. If that's all there is to it, it should be merged somewhere. Sadly, I am too unfamiliar with this area to suggest where. If more sources could be found I would be happy to change my opinion to keep.
Daranios (
talk) 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Exactly zilch suggestion of notability. Article has been tagged for lacking notability for months short of a decade (and tagged in general since December 2007). Prodded on the 13th, deprodded on the 14th, but the kind of deprod where it's suggested to go to AfD rather than confidently keep.
WP:BEFORE turned up two stores selling the physical game and a Pinterest post. Creator appears to be a
WP:SPA promoting the game.
Vaticidalprophet (
talk) 16:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete To appease another editor's concern for my fingers I am condensing this !vote into a shorter version of my findings on this
WP:BEFORE. No blah, blah, in-depth, blah, blah, significant, blah, blah, reliable, blah, blah, multiple sources.
WP:NOTWP:N --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete blatantly spam for a non-notable game. I can’t believe this article has survived for almost 15 years.
Dronebogus (
talk) 20:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - this game was obviously invented by the article's creator, and I can find no coverage at all in any sources that aren't game resellers.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non notable author and not notable for anything else. The book he supposedly wrote hasn't been reviewed by any sources that we look to for notability (though a similarly named book, not by him has)
CUPIDICAE💕 16:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per lack of evidence of meeting any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Probably qualifies as
WP:CSD#G11/
WP:NOTPROMO but the AFD process will send a stronger message than a G11-speedy deletion would.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs) 17:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete Fails
WP:NAUTHOR. Vanity article most likely creator of the article is the subject.
RationalPuff (
talk) 21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete nothing even close to showing meeting our notability guidelines for writers.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No sources found to establish notability, and the Japanese language sources present in the Japanese article don't appear to provide significant, independent coverage to meet WP:ORG. This does not seem to be part of a larger organization so there's no obvious merge target.
StarM 16:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - institutions such as this are generally notable and lots of Google Books results indicating coverage in secondary sources. I will add some content to article when I get a chance.
Further on this, I see one of the results is An International Directory of Theological Colleges (
SCM Press, 1997). There is no preview available, but it seems that JBS has an entry. And that's the thing about sources - they only have to exist, not to be readily accessible.
StAnselm (
talk) 22:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment An entry in a directory is not significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. I have no doubt it exists, just whether it's notable.
StarM 23:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep no evidence that an adequate check for Japanese langauge sources was performed before listing this article. Plus, such schools are typically notable.--
Epiphyllumlover (
talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I did indeed check, as well as review the sources in the Japanese article. In my opinion, nothing that establishes notability. Would love to be proven wrong.
StarM 17:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. on the basis of what's been said. Most such institutions are notable. DGG (
talk ) 04:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as has reliable book sources as shown by Google Books search and highlighted in this discussion, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete All the book sources that I looked at are all trivial passing mentions and name drops. None address the school directly and in-depth. Otherwise, people who say the books make it notable can point out three specific ones that do, instead of just going off the raw number of search results, and I'll be glad to change my vote to keep. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 09:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem is that none of the ones that look like they have significant coverage have full preview on Google.
StAnselm (
talk) 18:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep despite it being a poor stub. However, this is likely to be the only protestant seminary (for clergy) in Japan. Christianity is a minority religion there, though I am told that aspects of Christian culture are more engrained there than one might expect, but such unique facilities are likely to be notable.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previous PROD was removed for unsatisfactory reason. The article makes no statement of notability; see
WP:EXIST and various parts of
WP:NOTCATALOG. This building has received no independent coverage to indicate notability at
WP:NBUILDING and is only listed in non-notable architecture databases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 15:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
which databases, and how is it listed. ? DGG (
talk ) 02:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
redirect to
List of tallest buildings in Mexico City, in which it appears and which is the only possible claim to notability. All we have is an Emporis listing, which is not enough.
Mangoe (
talk) 16:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Hog FarmTalk 17:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Claims to have been cited by "many international publications", otherwise this would have been a speedy deletion as an online site without notability. That claim to importance doesn't bear scrutiny though: the article lists one reference by "Apartheid off campus", a very obscure organisation; and looking for other sources gave no usable results among the
31 hits (and nothing on Google news).
Fram (
talk) 14:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. There's clear agreement to significantly prune and remove people without references supporting the claim that they are self-taught. —
The Earwigtalk 08:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
A highly contentious article which doesn't conform
WP:V. Wikipedia is not a repository or an indiscriminate collection of information
WP:NOTCATALOG. I can see the list is simply growing without anyone questioning the correctness or verifiability of the claims. If someone is a notable autodidact that would be worth noting in the subject's article.
RationalPuff (
talk) 14:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment This looks more like a candidate for weeding than for deletion outright. Plenty of people are known for being autodidacts in fields that traditionally require a formal education (e.g.,
Srinivasa Ramanujan). It ought to be possible to find a criterion for who belongs on the list and who doesn't.
XOR'easter (
talk) 15:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Concur with XOR'easter that this is probably the way to go about this. I would suggest a requirement of reference to at least one-third party source that clearly states that the person is known for being self-taught. It's not going to be a quick job though (and I'm not volunteering to do it...) --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 23:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep 53 references in the article so far. Any that don't have references can be removed. Being self taught is a noteworthy thing.
DreamFocus 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep One course of action would be to restrict criteria from simply dropping out of college. Limit it to people whose education was actually self-directed, rather than allowing people who didn't receive credentials for their formal education (i.e remove people who went to college for several years but didn't get a degree).
Canned Frootloops (
talk) 15:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Delete No evidence of nobility. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia.
RationalPuff (
talk) 14:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete : Per
CSD A11 And G11 .
Kpgjhpjm 15:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NBAND. The sources are all self-generated. I find source on Google for a musician John Reynolds who was Sinead O'Connors husband, but I think he is a different person
Rogermx (
talk) 14:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. The nominator is correct, the subject is unrelated to
John Reynolds (musician), the former husband and musical collaborator of Sinéad O'Connor, whose name comes up more frequently in searches. This John Reynolds doesn't seem to have any notability apart from being the producer of Graham Clarke, but notability is not inherited by association.
Richard3120 (
talk) 15:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Stub article about an unnotable musician whose article cites no reliable, independent sources. Tagged for notability since 2009. Searching is difficult due to the bland name of the subject, as well as the more famous John Reynolds. So yeah, he is definitely not notable.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk) 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Based on provided info does not meet
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. If someone should add info otherwise, then we can reconsider.
Expertwikiguy (
talk) 23:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Not enough content to meet Wikipedia standards, creator should add more detail if he is notable.
CAVETOWNFAN (
talk) 14:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Possible non-notable film. No third party references provided in the article. Not much found.
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (
ping me) 14:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not enough significant and reliable coverage to satisfy the requirements at
WP:NFILM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 15:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NJOURNALIST. The whole article is based on one source, a book written as a tribute to the journalist, that has no ISBN number of any other identification. After looking through Google Books and some other services (
including Worldcat) I can't find any accessible copies of this tribute, or much evidence it even existed (I doubt the page creator fabricated this source, but I can't find any copies of it). After performing a
WP:BEFORE I can't find any reliable sources. The only sources I have found of the subject are via Newspapers.com; his name as a writer in small pieces for The Guardian. — Yours,
Berrely •
Talk∕
Contribs 13:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as per
WP:Basic. He was a partner in
Cricket Reporting Agency, and introduced the full page profile in Wisden, the Bible for cricket fans, as editor. Regularly still quoted. There won't be much SIGCOV from a sports reporter back then as that is an extremely modern thing starting in the 70s, a decade after his death.The article that nominator is questioning is in the Wisden 1961 edition, which is pre ISBN and was written by a recognised cricket writer
Neville CardusDavidstewartharvey (
talk) 15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. As editor of
Wisden Cricketer's Almanack, the most prestigious of all cricket publications, from 1944 to 1951 he is clearly notable. If his article doesn't currently have adequate citations (I haven't yet checked) then it should not be difficult to provide them. JH (
talk page) 16:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Very bad nomination. Dont know on the basis of what the user is nominating for deletion. There are multiple sources covering about the subject including Indian express, which is on wikipedia perennial sources list
Kichu🐘 Discuss 13:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - Meets
WP:GNG as shown by the references on the page. --
John B123 (
talk) 09:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - Because the above mentioned subject has been covered in multiple national medias following its death. Its one of the historical
Elephant which is part of
Kerala's culture. Also the references in the article makes the Elephant notable. Bestwishes
Poppifiedtalk 15:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I could not find any sources on this person being notable. There are some links on the article, basically all of them are now dead; there is an interview on Apple.com portal, but just about his company and not about him. The OReilly article could be salvaged, but it's still not enough in my opinion, not what could not be stuffed into Panic Inc. article itself. -
Running 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SNOW; alternately, redirect.
Bearian (
talk) 15:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. This looks like a possible autobiography. No notability at all.
FalconK (
talk) 06:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Not inclined to relist this for a third time. Note this no consensus close does not preclude a renomination at AfD in the near future, if someone wants to run this through the process again.
Daniel (
talk) 04:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Non-notable film, beyond mentioned in content farm articles, it does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources, per
WP:NFBOVINEBOY2008 01:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There are reviews from Inquistr and Bustle, both appear to be independent with editorial oversight.
Donaldd23 (
talk) 02:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete due to the lackluster sourcing and the fact that I can't find any other reviews. For instance a whole section of the Inquisitor "review" is about "The Deadly Side Effects Of Oxycontin." Which really isn't related to the film. So, it's say to say they are relevant or usable reviews. I'm on the weak side because they do exist though and it's likely someone can find something else that would be adequate, but I think it's a keep as things currently are. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 02:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. The sources present in the article are not on the blacklist. They are secondary sources that review the film. I believe it meets
WP: N.
✍A.WagnerC (
talk) 13:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 a clear absence of consensus, and at least a plausible assertion that paywalled or otherwise questionable sources may prove to yield notability upon further investigation. Note, per
WP:BLOG, that there are instances in which a blog written by experts in the field can be used as a source.
BD2412T 06:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The subject of the article is not notable; it is a long-defunct minor hobbyist OS of no particular import and with no particularly large user base, if it even has one.
Foonblace (
talk) 10:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Sources in the article aside, there seems to be some coverage on golem.de, arstechnica.com or root.cz (the last one being somewhat more than usual short news:
[15]). I will look for other sources and try to use them in the article, but my wiki-time is too limited these days.
Pavlor (
talk) 11:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Understood, however the source linked to is from 2006 and the project has been defunct for years - I don't believe adding additional sources would be enough to establish general notability.
Foonblace (
talk) 12:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I fear I don´t understand. Adding additional sources is the very way to prove notability of the article subject. It doesn´t matter if these sources are older as soon as these are reliable (well, "Wikipedia-reliable"): Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. (per WP:NOTTEMPORARY)
Pavlor (
talk) 13:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This coverage is not really "significant" though - it's a single article. A single article on a niche publication does not make something notable. I'm not saying that the notability is temporary, I'm saying that it never truly existed in the first place.
Foonblace (
talk) 14:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I do not think any entry on abandoned or discontinued operating systems should be removed. They are now abandoned, nonetheless each one of them has represented a step in the general history of software development. They were revised reviewed and commented on, and for some time they were even seen as viable.
151.76.10.64 (
talk) 14:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
It doesn't stand to reason that any OS that has ever existed has "represented a step in the general history of software development" if it did not leave a lasting legacy. In any event, "this existed once" does not establish notability. In this particular case, it left no lasting legacy, had no significant coverage and had no apparent notable user base. It's simply not notable by any definition except an extremely contorted one.
Foonblace (
talk) 17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
In this case (and with AtheOS too) this page has been here for years and to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever disputed its notability, not even when it was just a stub to work on. There were articles devoted to SyllableOS online, so it was notable, and wikipedia documented it. Now it seems to me the main point in deleting the page would be "SyllableOS is an old project, largely unsuccessful, and nobody uses it today". I am leaning to keep too.
151.76.10.64 (
talk) 21:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That someone made an article about it and never pointed out its lack of notability before does not mean it is notable. Again, it's not that it's not notable now, it's that it was *never* notable by Wikipedia's standards.
Foonblace (
talk) 22:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Other sources I found so far: quite long and detailed article about Syllable on pro-linux.de
[16] (contains several shorter articles/news about AtheOS/Slyllable, but I´m not sure this webpage is really RS - it claims to have editorial staff, but may be a better blog), Linux Format 105 (May 2008; one article devoted to several alternative OSs, behind pay-wall, so can´t say, how much broad coverage of Syllable), Linux Format 78 (April 2006; 4 pages about Syllable, but author is also a Syllable contributor, so not entirely independent coverage). There may be more of this kind (like OSNews in the article and root.cz mentioned above), I´m leaning to keep.
Pavlor (
talk) 18:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Onel5969TT me 00:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep - Unconvincing delete rationale, nom failed to improve argument in following discussion. I have no opinion on whether the topic is notable. —
Charles Stewart(talk) 07:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Somewhat weak keep as there are some sources with broad enough coverage of the article subject but their reliability or independence may be questionable. Still enough - in my POV - sources to establish notability.
Pavlor (
talk) 11:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I ask myself a question as I am doing a
WP:BEFORE search. Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives more than routine coverage but is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable and independent is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives different coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails
WP:N in those regards. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable academic. I haven't found any independent coverage. The sources listed are just the subject's publications (articles and books), along with two YouTube videos.
Delete not even close to being a notable academic.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I was able to find evidence that the subject has published. But a total of five publications with >5 citations and the highest are 67, 61, and 56. Doesn't seem like it is enough to for a pass of
WP:PROF#C1. Couldn't find any evidence of passing any of the other options for WP:PROF either. Article states that the subject is a professor at New Mexico State. It appears
she was an associate professor there in 2016 but doesn't appear on
the current faculty directory, unless she switched departments.
MoneciousTriffid (
talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Classic
astroturfing by the same user who's creating or massively adding POV to these articles essays, then edit-warring to
defend them. -
CorbieVreccan☊☼ 19:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I'd expect book reviews to be more illuminating than citation counts in this field, but with only one book, there's not really much to go on. Neither
WP:AUTHOR nor
WP:PROF appear to be met.
XOR'easter (
talk) 04:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am hesitant to eliminate an article for which we might have
systemic bias.
Bearian (
talk) 16:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
FWIW, As a member of the
Indigenous Wikiproject, just noting that this article was pretty clearly created to bolster another article that is being AfD'd due to the concerns of wikiproject members. There are serious concerns about how a group of articles are being used to misrepresent Indigenous views and issues, and this is part of that group. Just being Indigenous doesn't make her notable. -
CorbieVreccan☊☼ 20:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject passes neither
WP:PROF nor (with only a single
edited volume to her credit)
WP:AUTHOR, and no alternative ways of knowing how she might be notable are evident. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. It looks like the refs added towards the end convinced most people, but at best this would be no consensus. Sandstein 10:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable at this moment. Article may come back after it is built if it's shown to have a large notability. Stay safe,
CycloneToby 12:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Silly. I say just keep the article and let it snowball but otherwise just redirect to
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'll just be recreating in a couple months unless another editor beats me to the punch. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 13:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
May I please request, IF we're not keeping in main space right now, can the page be moved to draft space instead of deleted? This will just be recreated in a couple months, assuming no unveiling delay. Another editor has also posted a note on my talk page saying they plan to help recreate this article as well. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 18:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Arguably passes GNG now & is sure to in a couple of months. Deletion would be purposeless. --
Tagishsimon (
talk) 13:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Draftify An easy solution would be to draftify the article rather than delete wholesale. It most likely will receive a lot of attention from media organizations over the next few months and especially once built. By then more sources could be added and the article could be expanded with more information. Wikipedia does have a notability guideline (
WP:N) and it should be followed. Not notable now but will be very soon. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 13:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Merge with
Ruth Bader Ginsburg#RecognitionGillie and Marc - this article on a commemorative public sculpture of a notable woman. When I arrived at this AfD, the article already had three sigcov citations in reliable, verifiable news sources: the New York Times, ABC News, and CBS news. I added two more; it now has five. A quick BEFORE search brought up multiple other news sources. I agree with
Tagishsimon that it is purposeless to delete it, or even to draftify - that would just make additional work for editors like
Another Believer who has offered to recreate it. Honestly, I am very surprised this was nominated for deletion.
Netherzone (
talk) 14:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
CommentAccording to
WP:N and even
WP:GNG multiple sources is considered sources that do not repeat the same information. They are reliable but they say the same thing, therefore they are counted as one source, not multiple as required by the notability guideline. It is not creating more work to draftify the article until all the information can be gathered and multiple sources which cover the story in a significant way from different angles can be found. If we go by policy, the article should not be included. The statue does not receive notability just because the subject of the statue is notable. We all know this...notability is not inherited. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 15:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Netherzone, I never expected otherwise. I just wanted to add the contextual differences between personal opinion and factual evidence. ;-) --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 16:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Tsistunagiska, I've never heard of this criteria requiring new information in each source. Where is this documented? ~
Kvng (
talk) 15:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Kvng The notes for
WP:GNG state "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 14:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
One can extrapolate from the information above that the notes are offering examples but that the same principle applies for all sources. If it is just the same story repeated over again or if the sources of the article are being pulled from the same sources themselves then it only counts as one source for notability. It must be several reliable sources independent of each other, not only literally but also in content. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 14:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Tsistunagiska, OK but all of this is not the same as your original blanket statement that if two sources have the same information, they should be considered one. What we're looking for is for sources to be independent of one another (and independent of the subject). I am aware of this. ~
Kvng (
talk) 14:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Kvng I meant what I said as my interpretations of the above wording. If you have three articles, from CNN, ABC NEWS, and MSNBC, all reporting on the same subject, from the same POV and basically saying the same thing they can only be counted as one source for notability despite being multiple reliable sources theselves. The story is the same and therefore is only one source. That's what I gathered from what was said. In the case of this statue, the few sources all state the same information therefore they are the same. There is no independent viewpoints because it is so new. They all cover the same subject from the same vantage point using the same sources for their work. That's what I was saying. My suggestion was to give it time and then recreate the page adding the new sources and it will be soething to support for inclusion. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 15:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Tsistunagiska, OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see similar coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as an indication that the topic is important or at least popular. If we've deemed the sources reliable and independent, we should assume good faith in the reporting; It's not groupthink, perhaps the reporting is similar because the subject is just not that complicated. ~
Kvng (
talk) 15:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Will definitely receive widespread coverage at the unveiling - there's no reason to delete it now only to recreate the exact same page later.--
Bettydaisies (
talk) 03:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Is the topic of an RBG statue notable? Yes, because if the statue gets cancelled, there will be even more articles about the cancellation. If it gets built unveiled to the public, there will be even more articles about what people think of it. It is a certainty that there will be more articles on this topic. Also, not to discount my fine arguments, but RBG was awesome.
Possibly (
talk) 06:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Adequately covered in highly regarded secondary sources.--
Ipigott (
talk) 12:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
*Comment for clarification - The sculpture has already been built. It exists. It has been photographed. It is finished. It has been written about in multiple verifiable independent reliable sources. It is the unveiling that has not happened yet. The unveiling ceremony will occur on March 15 because is the new official holiday in NYC, "Justice Ginsberg Day" (which is also her birthday). Therefore CRYSTALBALL does not apply. If the article was called "The unveiling of the statue of RGB" then it would apply, however, the sculpture DOES exist, it has been built, it is already notable. Look at the citations.Netherzone (
talk) 14:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~
Kvng (
talk) 15:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep/Merge to subject's bio certainly will be notable once unveiled. Rather silly nom: "No claim to notability or duration of coverage".
Johnbod (
talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, Draftify, or Merge with
Gillie and Marc. @
Another Believer: it pains me to vote to delete an article you started, and one about RBG, but the fact is that things are not what they seem: First and foremost, there are two sculptures, this one and an official permanent monument near her birthplace -- that is the one that Cuomo spoke about, and that is the one that had the legit jury. So half of the sources that @
Netherzone,
Ipigott, and
Kvng: refer to are not actually about this work, and I have removed the 4 citations that refer to this other sculpture. Second, it is not verifiable that this one is permanent, as I believe is implied by @
Possibly:'s argument. It is installed at
City Point (Brooklyn), which is a mall. Gillie and Marc are known for putting up temporary sculptures on the premises of property developers, and ginning up tons of opportunist press coverage ("The Last Three" has significantly more press coverage than this sculpture, and we don't have an article for it), and sometimes generating pretty intense controversy for their kitsch, and lack of cultural sensitivity. And the vast majority of their sculptures are not of notable women, they are of an imaginary self portrait as a dog. If this sculpture is ultimately permanent, then maybe the article has a place, but almost none of their existing work is permanent. Until then it is Crystal Ball. Regretfully.
Theredproject (
talk) 20:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Theredproject, Thank you clarifying this, and for taking the time to make changes to correct the errors that I unknowingly introduced. I was completely unaware of the issues you raise, and confused the two sculptures. I'm still somewhat confused, and am wondering if I should strike my comments above stating the the sculpture has already been built. Is the Cuomo sculpture built yet, or this one (which is the Gillie & Marc sculpture? That info will help in redefining my !vote accordingly.
Netherzone (
talk) 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Netherzone, It appears that the
Gillie and Marc sculpture has been made, but not installed (though some of their other work has been presented as rendererings, so it is unclear if this is a sophisticated digital render). I did a Autobiography/COI TNT on their article a few years ago, so learned quite a bit about their work. They make/conceive sculptures, then work with real estate companies to temporarily install them on their property for 3 to 9 months, then move them to another site. The official, permanent sculpture has not yet been created, and will likely take quite a long time to create. Cuomo announced the 23 member commission in October.
[17]. This commission has Ginsburg's relatives, her colleagues, law clerks, the directors of the Brooklyn Museum, and El Museo del Barrio etc.
Theredproject (
talk) 21:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Theredproject, got it, thank you for straitening that out. It is also good to know the Gillie and Marc article and any associated articles on their specific works should be watched for continued PROMO moving forward.
Netherzone (
talk) 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge selectively to
Ruth Bader Ginsburg#Recognition:
WP:N, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." There is no reason to have separate articles about every public honor a person receives, even if it has articles in the news. This content should be handled in the main article; if that is too large, create a page for memorials and hornors, not individual pages. 05:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TimothyBlue (
talk •
contribs)
Clear Keep. We have to look at more than the refs in the article. I just added eight or nine more rs refs. There are a lot out there. Clearly passes GNG.
2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (
talk) 08:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
WP:DRAFTIFY is not allowed because the article is being actively worked on (almost 50 edits in the last few days). ~
Kvng (
talk) 23:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Ruth Bader Ginsburg#Recognition per TimothyBlue. Notability of statues is not inherited from their subjects, and there is no indication of long-term, enduring coverage that would justify a separate article.
Edge3 (
talk) 20:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge as per above.
Störm(talk) 07:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep because I can't see the justification for deletion.
Deb (
talk) 19:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, per discussion and obvious well-sourced notable topic with sources added since the nom. The statue is not "crystal", it exists, and is one of the few statues of real-life women in New York city. As Deb says, can't see the justification for deletion.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 12:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Ruth Bader Ginsburg#Recognition per those above, and per
WP:NOTINHERITED. The article as it stands now is hanging a promotion for the artists on the
WP:COATRACK of the statue, but as of now the statue itself is not notable separately from the individual it depicts, and details can be easily summarized in the biography.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Question.
User:Namiba, when you nominated the article it had only one reference. It now has 20, including from the New York Times, CNN, and PEOPLE, some of which you may believe are RSs devoted to the subject of this article. Do you still believe that it does not meet GNG, or does this soften your opinion?
2603:7000:2143:8500:DC79:4CC3:DC44:71FA (
talk) 18:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article now has multiple tertiary sources that provide coverage of the topic, though some of them duplicate each other. However, the statue hasn't been unveiled yet, so coverage of the statue will unsurprisingly be limited at the present time. As a result, I'm not opposed to merging this article for now, although that would likely end up unmerged anyway once it is unveiled.
Epicgenius (
talk) 02:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Daniel (
talk) 13:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NACTOR,
WP:NMODEL and
WP:BASIC; does not have in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources and lacks the accolades to be notable by default.
Spiderone 10:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. The sources that are currently in the article are essentially spam and I can find nothing better.
Blablubbs|
talk 11:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete sources, as
Blablubbs said, are spam, and I'm quite sure they aren't even reliable in the slightest way. That, or it was like self written. Stay safe,
CycloneToby 12:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete. Perhaps she is well known in Nepal, but the sources in the article do not seem to be secondaries.
✍A.WagnerC (
talk) 13:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I can see that the creator has added a few more references to the article but they all just look like promo photo shoots so I'm still strongly supporting deletion
Spiderone 17:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Requires proper work - All reference sources are not reliable or notably categories. Create this article on basis of advertisement categories and it is against the law of Wikipedia. All references are not news sources. Maybe the person is famous in Nepal but I can't find any news source with public news. I request to article creator to find the real source of public news, not a blog page or local website page.
Micromadmonkey 12:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Coverage seems light and sources are formatted incorrectly. Needs work.
Peter303x (
talk) 02:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no such thing as "city municipality of Užice". There is the
City of Užice, which is covered in article
Užice and redirects there, and city municipality of
Sevojno, part of the
City of Užice. This article purports to describe the remaining part (i.e. City of Užice minus Sevojno), but its only source is a map from the statistical office. The official website
https://uzice.rs/ does not mention such municipality, it has no president nor any organs separate from the City's. This entity does not verifiably exist, except perhaps as a statistical unit, and the article is pure OR, providing virtually no conent. None of the linked interwikis describe the same purported thing; most importantly, Serbian interwiki is
sr:Град Ужице, describing the whole
City of Užice.
No such user (
talk) 08:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep: This seems to read a lot like a foreign equivalent to a CDP - other CDPs have been kept, as the census is deeming them notable by and through their population.
~RAM (
talk) 08:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I've already attempted a merge into
Užice, since all verifiable info boils down to a single sentence about statistically assigned territory and population. It was
reverted by the author, so here we are. I think it's notable the even the "home" Serbian Wikipedia does not have an article about this non-entity so I don't see why we should. It only misleads the readers that it's a real thing.
No such user (
talk) 08:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge/delete Even if this is a real statistical subdivision, there's no reason it can't be covered in the main article.
Reywas92Talk 06:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge: Completely unnecesssary SUBSTUB CFORK. There is no indication that this is anything other than a statistical area and census tracts are usually not considered notable per WP:GEOLAND #1 if there are not sources demonstrating notability. //
Timothy ::
t |
c |
a 14:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Užice, subdivisions solely used as census tracts do not pass GEOLAND.
Devonian Wombat (
talk) 03:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge as suggested and is reasonable.
Bearian (
talk) 16:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Users felt that
AviationFreak provided a more compelling case for notability than the nomination did in demonstrating
WP:BLP1E. (
non-admin closure) –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 16:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Fairly clear case of
WP:BLP1E (with two events), as no reliable sources seem to discuss his actual YouTube/streaming career (the type of content he produces, for example, is only mentioned in passing in the sources about his controversies). Simple markers of popularity in the form of subscriber counts (currently sourced from SocialBlade) are not sufficient to establish notability under
WP:BASIC.
Also possibly applicable:
WP:BLPCRIME, as Carson's status as a high-profile individual is questionable given the criteria in
WP:PUBLICFIGURE.
WP:PSEUDO also seems like an appropriate essay. —
Goszei (
talk) 05:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Full disclosure, I accepted the Draft of this article a few days ago at AfC. In my opinion there should be a guideline with a
bright-line rule on YouTuber (or internet personality/entertainer more generally) notability, but that's another discussion for another time. As far as this article goes, I don't think
WP:BLP1E applies here. The guideline is clearly designed to weed out articles about folks who were not in any way notable prior to an event, and received coverage only relating to that event. This could be used in cases like Kimberly "Sweet Brown" Wilkins, which redirects (as it should) to Ain't Nobody Got Time for That. In this case, however, Carson's coverage occurred because of his prior notability and status. If an "average joe" had been accused of sexual misconduct involving a minor, it would cause a small and local media blip. In this case, it is much larger. I would be fine with a split of the article into "CallMeCarson" and "CallMeCarson sexual misconduct allegations" (or something similar), but in this case I feel the subject is clearly notable and the article should be kept. AviationFreak💬 07:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
AviationFreak: The assertion that Carson was "notable" in the sense of
WP:N under the GNG (the current governing guideline) before these allegations is clearly false. As I stated, the article currently has zero SIGCOV sources about his pre-allegation career, and I am unable to find any through my searches. If we follow that guideline, this is a case of a non-notable individual faced with a
WP:BLP1E.You alluded to the idea that there should be a different standard of "notability" for online entertainers, but I disagree with this view – I still think the GNG is important as a foundation for all articles because it establishes that simple popularity (i.e. subscriber count) is not good enough for an article. I generally share the views espoused in
WP:HARM#TEST that Biographies should not be dominated by a single event in the subject's life. GNG also helps solve this problem: if there was reliable sourcing outside of these controversies, we could write a balanced biography. Because there aren't, it is impossible to do this and the article will remain in this
WP:PSEUDO state for the foreseeable future. —
Goszei (
talk) 08:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Even outside of this notability-outside-of-one-event problem, the events detailed in the allegations are frankly scandal-mongering/gossip material (
WP:SENSATIONAL), so they are not notable. —
Goszei (
talk) 09:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I hold to my previously stated views that
WP:BLP1E is only designed to apply to people who were not in any way notable prior to their involvement in an event. I also don't think the article's sources are
WP:SENSATIONAL, as they are rooted in fact and don't appear to be blowing the story out of proportion or twisting details of it. I'm not sure what you meant by calling "the events detailed in the allegations" scandal-mongering/gossip. Even if current policy does not see Carson as notable (which I'm not convinced it doesn't), I would push for the inclusion of this article based on
WP:IAR. Any subject who has millions of people actively interested in and aware of them is notable in my mind, regardless of their coverage in secondary reliable sources. I would say this of any subject with a following of millions, which is why I stated above that there should be a guideline dealing with internet notability. AviationFreak💬 15:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I'd also argue that
WP:NOTBURO applies here - it's important to have this article up, even if King's past YouTube career isn't well-documented.
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 03:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't think enforcing policies on living persons is a point of bureaucracy, but rather one of our most important duties as responsible article writers. From
WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Right now, the article is question is using the Toronto Sun (a tabloid) and Newsweek (a source considered "generally not reliable" at
WP:RSPSRC). This is not good enough under BLP rules, and as I said I contend that it doesn't satisfy notability either. Insider and The Daily Dot are somewhat better, but still in-the-news churnalism that doesn't justify the existence of an article built entirely on biographical controversies. Considering the lack of other sourcing and the fact that Carson will likely not return to the public eye, the article will in likelihood remain in this state indefinitely.
WP:NOTATABLOID (an essay) sums up my position rather well. —
Goszei (
talk) 10:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep: I nominated the article for creation after rewriting it. Mostly, I agree with
AviationFreak (
talk·contribs), and I'd add that King wouldn't be non-notable without the allegations. There are other sources writing about CallMeCarson, and I also agree that there should be a better standard for YouTubers, who can attract massive popularity with little attention from the media.
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 07:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep: Keep, per the explanation that
AviationFreak laid out. The new coverage meets
WP:GNG~RAM (
talk) 08:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. If this is not a case of BLP1E (reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event), then there must be at least one source (preferably multiple) that contain significant coverage of the subject outside of the event. As there are zero of these in the article, and no one has provided any, I struggle to see how it passes the GNG (AviationFreak is proposing a notability standard outside of GNG, which is an argument in its own right but not one under the purview of that guideline, to be clear). —
Goszei (
talk) 01:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There's nothing here on the topos besides a church named Walker Chapel and an accompanying cemetery.
This says that Kidd Cemetery, Walker Chapel Cemetery, and Booger Tree Church Cemetery are the same place, so is Booger Tree an old name for Walker Chapel?
The only newspapers.com result in Alabama papers is just a passing mention. I found one definitely not-RS mention in somebody's personal website, but beyond that, everything is just mirrors of either wikipedia or GNIS. I was expecting more coverage with a name this weird, but I'm seeing no indication in RS that
WP:GEOLAND or
WP:GNG are met.
Hog FarmBacon 04:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
delete This one is another name scooped up in one of GNIS's fishing expeditions, in this case in
the website of the Winston County Genealogical Society. I looked through their pages for uses of the name, and while one page calls it a "community" in passing, and another calls it a "place" and provides lat/long coordinates for it, and a third page has a picture of the chapel, they say nothing at any length, not so much as a full sentence. Topos do not ever acknowledge the name. I just don't see how this is notable.
Mangoe (
talk) 04:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: GEOFEAT points to GNG for places without legal recognition and this does not have multiple IS RS with SIGCOV. //
Timothy ::
t |
c |
a 13:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A non-notable activist with no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources are either passing mentions, interview or are unreliable.
GSS💬 03:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom. In addition, the article has some style issues. I'd welcome a new article if someone wanted to rewrite with additional sources and a more neutral tone
~RAM (
talk) 08:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Her activism is prolific, and maybe she should have some
WP:SIGCOV, but she doesn't.
FalconK (
talk) 06:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable software with little to no coverage in
WP:RS. The citations to Time and the NYT are short snippets of list articles, not significant coverage. Other sources include the company's own website and interviews with the author.
FalconK (
talk) 06:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I ran a quick Google search and found mostly press releases and brief mentions in "new years resolution" (like
[18]) or "best meditation app" (like
[19]) articles. The exception was
https://www.mindfulreturn.com/insight-timer/, but I'm not sure they are a RS.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 06:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Forbes contributor articles are generally unreliable per
WP:FORBESCON. The Sydney Morning Herald article is not enough to satisfy
WP:GNG alone; it's primarily an interview with the founder and is very nearly a human interest story. But if there were more sustained coverage like it, preferably that did more than document the small business' existence, it might pass.
FalconK (
talk) 01:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vaticidalprophet (
talk) 02:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. While some of the sources are definitely credible (the NYT is the strongest that I see), none of them seem to be primarily about this app. The NYT, Time, and Yahoo news articles, for example, include it in lists of several similar apps. The Mashable article does seem primarily focused on Insight Timer (and is not a guest piece; the author's profile says "Camille is an editorial news intern at Mashable"). However, I don't think this single source (and one Forbes contributor blog post) really establishes notability for what, according to every other source, seems to be fairly
WP:MILL. jp×g 14:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Taking to AFD, rather than PROD, because this one just baffles me. This GNIS entry in the article does not work,
here is the correct one. Google Maps says the coordinates are out in the middle of the woods on "Skullhead Road", while the topos show it on the edge of a swamp. Exactly one of the topos includes the name "Skullhead" at the site, but shows nothing there. It's near the Florida/Georgia line, so I tried searching newspapers.com in both states, and got a bunch of uses of skullhead as an adjective, a white supremacist metal band, and a bowling league team from Florida in 1962.
This 1980s USGS document calls it a locale. Google books isn't helpful at all. I can't fathom what this place was, but it doesn't seem to meet
WP:GEOLAND or
WP:GNG.
Hog FarmBacon 02:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete Whatever the story is, it hardly matters: this was mass-produced by the same person who made such junk as
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey Box, Florida and they had no respect for substantive coverage and verifiability. The Georgia Geographic Names link shows that the GNIS erred in transcribing its "class" entry, as they so often do, and this is not a notable community.
Reywas92Talk 04:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
delete A point in a swamp which is obviously not a settlement and for which nothing can be found is surely non-notable, even prusming whatever it was existed.
Mangoe (
talk) 05:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
speedy delete yet another pointless article for a seemingly nonexistent US community.
Dronebogus (
talk) 13:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete no where is our coverage more unbalanced than in geography. We have an article on this place that there is no evidence ever even had one resident, yet of
Oruk Anam's 16 major villages we have articles on no more than 10 of them. That is a place that 15 years ago had 172,000 people.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The primary reason for this discussion going the way it is, is because the article was significantly worked on during the 7 day period (not a bad thing at all). Because a number of comments came early before this happened, it is really difficult to establish where consensus sits, hence the determination in bold. Feel free to relist in the near future if you still believe the updated version needs a review through the AfD process.
Daniel (
talk) 04:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Completely unsourced article about a non-notable person . A Google search brings up only mirror sites and another site which only has passing mention about a judgement in the court .
Kpgjhpjm 02:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: unsourced article that questionably would even meet the
WP:GNG~RAM (
talk) 08:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
* Delete per nom. Unsourced article.
RationalPuff (
talk) 09:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep with change Changing my vote. I did some further research and concluded that the subject meets the nobility criteria although may not be widely covered in the online sources. Here are some references [3][4]. I'm going to add these citations to the article. The second para of the article is questionable though as I could not find any source to validate the claims.
RationalPuff (
talk) 12:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives more than routine coverage but is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source according to
WP:GNG. The subject of this article fails
WP:N, Wikipedia's notability guideline. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Vinegarymass911:, I went through the links provided , there is a couple of mentions but not really
Significant coverage for the first one . The second one could be significant but hard to judge by reading a few lines .
Kpgjhpjm 08:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep As a member of the
Bengal Legislative Council, he is presumed to be notable under
WP:NPOL. The "completely unsourced" rationale for deletion no longer holds true, and a Google search is inadequate for a historical figure who flourished 1900-1946 in a part of the world where most sources could be expected to be in Bengali instead of English.
The encyclopedia article about him, added by
RationalPuff, is in-depth significant coverage in a reliable and independent source. The paper by Sanjukta Datta is a second such source. Additional sources exist, such as
[20],
[21], and
[22] (in Bengali).
ARoseWolf is correct that
multiple sources are generally expected, and that multiple stories sometimes count as only one source, but there is no requirement that sources have "different angles" on the subject, only that we neutrally represent however many significant viewpoints exist. The cases where multiple stories count as one are when one story (an Associated Press report, for example) is repeated in multiple newspapers, when several journals simultaneously publish articles relying on the same sources and restating the same information, or a series of articles by the same author or in the same periodical. None of those situations describe the varied sources under discussion here.
The text of the stub, little changed from when created a decade ago, sucks. It would be no great loss to the encyclopedia if the text were removed, but Afd is not cleanup, and there is no sound policy-based reason to delete the topic. He is best known today as co-founder of the Varendra Research Society in 1910 and the Varendra Research Museum in 1919. At the very least, his name is a plausible search term, and could be redirected to the museum as an
alternative to deletion. --
Worldbruce (
talk) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment @Admin et al. I concur with
Worldbruce that not all historical figures would have widespread coverage in the online medium today. The subject was the founder of the
Varendra Research Museum considered to be the oldest museum in Bangladesh and the first museum to be established in
East Bengal in 1910. It is evident from the citations in the multiple research publications even c.70yrs after his death and listing in the
Banglapedia (a project funded by Bangladeshi Govt. and UNESCO) that the subject is notable. I agree, the content of the article was quite poor when it was flagged up for AfD and since has improved appropriately to meet the nobility criteria.
RationalPuff (
talk) 18:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Multiple articles (in other languages) regarding his cricket performances, published within the past 2 weeks. The consensus of the previous AFD was clearly keep, and nothing has really changed regarding his notability.
~RAM (
talk) 08:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Seems unlikely there would be recent coverage of a one-match cricketer from the 1940s. Perhaps you could cite these sources? Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge/redirect to
List of Karnataka cricketers. This is a match report masquerading as a biography. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (
recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete the sourcing is no where near meeting GNG. It is time we stopped treating people as notable for being in just one match.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives more than routine coverage but is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails
WP:N in those regards when conducting a
WP:BEFORE. Over the entire breadth of these articles on these cricket players I have seen no substance from those saying we should keep other than them pointing to the past. I do not look at past AfD's because all I am concerned with is what is presented as evidence now. No one has convinced me these players pass the criteria we are to measure EVERY article by. SNG's are fine to presume notability. Presumed notability can be rebutted with facts. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 17:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
What "facts" are you after? These articles provide nothing but facts. No needless puffery telling people what hairdresser's they went to or where their dentist lives. And yes, every single other sporting project runs to their own SSG. Why is cricket the only sport under scrutiny? (That second question is a serious one).
Bobo. 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
When the others are presented I will say the same thing for them. SNG's even state they "presume" notability and if you look up the definition of "presume" on Wikipedia it says it can be rebutted by factual evidence based on the notability guideline. SNG's can be used to create an article but do not guarantee notability or that the article should be retained. That measuring stick is found at
WP:N in the first few sentences. This article was brought to AfD. I made my determination based on the criteria we are instructed to use in confirming notability. The subject failed based on that criteria. Doesn't mean I have to like it. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 17:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem with trying to justify bypassing subject specific guidelines is that every single argument becomes suspiciously political... As for WP:N, let's quote directly: "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right". Or. And that's where the problem lies. (This isn't a personal criticism by the way). The fact that WP:N itself states that SNGs can be followed proves that GNG is worthless and is based on nothing but pushing POV.
Bobo. 17:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Ah, but SNG's state it "presumes" notability but doesn't guarantee it. Presumed notability can be rebutted with evidence based on the only measuring stick we have, "receives significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources" is our way to measure. I explained above what each means according to their definition on Wikipedia. This is what can be used to rebut the presumed notability presented by the SNG. I would never use an SNG to create an article based on what I know now but that's a risk you take. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Such is the problem with the word "presumed", and I have fallen foul of being complacent about this too. The word "presumed" has no meaning. And when it tries to, it is so woolly that it becomes completely meaningless in itself. None of the definitions on WK provide anything near the definition we use. The word "presumed" is nonsense and only exists to push POV.
Bobo. 18:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
NSPORT, which also governs NCRIC, is a guide to the likelihood of meeting the GNG; "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline" (FAQ Q2). I think three and a half years since the previous AFD is more than enough time for sources to have been found if they existed. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Once again, the lack of any consistency in guidelines makes me more likely to treat all which attempt to push exclusionism, as completely meaningless and disruptive.
Bobo. 18:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
There is established consensus on how the guidelines are (or should be) applied. Discussions, including recently/ongoing at WT:N (and an
earlier RFC), make it clear that NSPORT is an egregious outlier as far as SNGs are concerned, so is treated differently. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
So (honest question) NSPORT is an outlier in general - and not just CRIN? The one place where we can work to brightline criteria rather than making articles up for no reason? That seems like seven backward steps to me. As for the RfC which people continually point to, that's the most non-consensus discussion I've ever read. How anyone could have read any consensus into this debate is beyond me.
Bobo. 18:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Presume most definitely has a definition, "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability." A calculated risk with no guarantee of success. I take offense to your suggestion that I am pushing a POV by holding every article accountable to the notability guideline as it is written. In fact, my determination has nothing to do with my personal POV which you would know if you have read anything I have written in the past. The refusal of editors to administer the notability guideline evenly across every subject, project and article is more pushing a specific POV than anything I have said here. Nothing is every going to change here unless everything is treated equally within the parameters of those words which are very concise and direct. Subjectivity needs to be removed so we can evaluate and possibly make changes that will benefit the encyclopedia going forward. AfD's have become "mob rule" in a sense so I look at whether it receives in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. No POV, No politics, no opinion --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 18:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Forgive me. I don't mean you specifically. I mean as a project, using the word "presumed" as an excuse to flout guidelines which are easy to understand by themselves.
Bobo. 18:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
My apologies for misunderstanding you. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - at least a comprehensive List of X cricketers article exists in this case. As I've said all along, given what is going on right now it seems strange that there was such resistance to the idea at first.
Bobo. 10:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Karnataka cricketers per Spiderone. There is no in depth coverage and a technical pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG. As this seems quite a common name (500+ LinkedIn profiles with it), I wouldn't be opposed to a delete result on the grounds that someone's quite likely to create a rogue blue link about someone completely different at some point.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 11:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete.
G7 by Fastily.
TheSandDoctorTalk 03:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep: Consensus was to keep 4 months ago, nothing has changed.
~RAM (
talk) 08:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Nothing has changed since 4 months ago.
CreativeNorth (
talk) 11:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (
recent NSPORT discussion here), but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. We do not have to wait for inadequate guidelines to be rewritten before dealing with inadequately sourced and unsourcable articles. Moreover NSPORT (including NCRIC) does not supercede GNG. No sources beyond wide ranging databases. No suitable list to merge to. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. The result of the previous AFD was "no consensus". Those citing that result as a reason for keep should provide a valid rationale here explaining how this meets GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep can't see any advance on the deletion arguments from the previous AfD.
StickyWicket (
talk) 13:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Given NCRIC has been further discredited since that AFD, I still can't see any valid policy/guideline-based keep arguments here or there. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment and still no actual contributions to the Cricket Project since then either?
StickyWicket (
talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives more than routine coverage but is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails
WP:N in those regards when conducting a
WP:BEFORE. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep and comment - if what is needed is a discussion as to whether no consensus decisions on BLP's defaults to "keep" or "delete", this does not happen in one AfD. And it's not the brightline guidelines which have been discredited, it's the project, based on utterly woolly guidelines which push POV beyond all recognition, rather than instructions which are insultingly easy to understand. The fact that no other sporting projects receive this level of disruption, and that we were fine for nearly 16 years, is probably proof that what is being done now is nothing but disruptive, and that it's not the fault of those who have spent 16 years building the project up. Is it any wonder why there are so few of us left? Those of us who have been doing so, would quite like to see those who are currently protesting, help to build the project themselves.
Bobo. 17:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This is a great impassioned speech, honestly, I appreciate it. The only problem with what you wrote is that it is wholly off-point, policy wise, and does not lend any substance to the discussion at hand outside of your personal opinion. I'd love to have a discussion with you on one of our talk pages about the issues anytime. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. No evidence of notability. Article can always be recreated by people with access to actual indepth sources, not just databases.
Fram (
talk) 16:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Regardless when the last AFD was held, it is no longer acceptable to maintain articles about sportspersons who played 1 game of their sport. 100+ AFD precedences point to this, overruling a project guideline.
Geschichte (
talk) 08:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet
WP:GNG, all provided coverage is either non-independent or else
routine coverage of her hiring. I was not able to find anything better searching online. She presumably has a Chinese name as well, but as it was not provided in the article I was unable to search for coverage using it. signed, Rosguilltalk 01:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Nothing here adds up to encyclopedic notability.
BD2412T 06:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable person in the music publishing business.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:SIGCOV - she's gotten quite a lot of coverage in reliable sources.
Bearian (
talk) 16:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources myself, just a
WP:RESUME.
FalconK (
talk) 06:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (
recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete it is high time we started enforcing the GNG. It is also high time we just got rid of the cricket notability guidelines. They have lead to more fluffy, unsourced, placeholder articles than any other guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives more than routine coverage but is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails
WP:N in those regards when conducting a
WP:BEFORE. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 16:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (
recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives more than routine coverage but is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails
WP:N in those regards when conducting a
WP:BEFORE. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 16:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Maybe 2021 will be the year when we finally start to significantly reduce the number of articles on non-notable cricket players. Although I have to admit I have doubts.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Hog FarmTalk 15:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (
recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete we lack the substantive, indetail coverage needed to justify having an article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives more than routine coverage but is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails
WP:N in those regards when conducting a
WP:BEFORE. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk) 16:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a strange article. At first I thought it had been transcribed from another website, because the footnotes are superscripted numbers enclosed in square brackets. But, after doing some Googling, I cannot find the text anywhere except
Wikivisually, a website which appears to just reproduce and host Wikipedia's content. You'll note that the "references" are in the same state there. I've also wondered if the article might have been deleted, and then someone attempted to re-create it, pasting a previous iteration.
I can't find no real, sustained evidence of notability.
Google Books returns two results; both appear to be address listings. The only real link on the page is to the UACC website – dead link. A New York Times article is also on the page. It only mentions it in passing, a trivial mention. The book lists are addresses listings, and it looks like they might have been paid-for, and not included because of the organisation's merit. It also appears to be defunct. — ImaginesTigers (
talk) 00:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article in current form does not clearly meet/surpass standards of
WP:GNG due to few significant and independent sources. Also, subject of article has requested that biography be removed (this is not the main reason, per
WP:NOTCSD, but would like extra admin consideration).
Aeffenberger (
talk) 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. There is a problem here because the subject appears to meet
WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of GS citations. No verifiable evidence is presented that the subject wants deletion.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 08:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC).reply
Comment. I'm not seeing how she meets
WP:Prof#C1, since it doesn't seem there are any independent citations (although I just brought up a potential independent RS in the Talk section). The "Latham Family Career Development Associate Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences" also does not count toward
WP:Prof#C5 as it's for junior faculty. I'm partial to this being
WP:TOOSOON.
JoelleJay (
talk) 18:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
C1 is about citations to her work, not about references about the subject in the article.
Google Scholar lists papers with citation counts 364, 913, 744, 569, 237, 272, etc., well above our usual thresholds for #C1. That is, there are thousands (364+913+744+569+237+272+...) of publications that are at least in part about her work, most of them independent and reliably published, and some of them (we expect) likely in-depth rather than just passing citations. I agree that #C5 is not met, but we only need one. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oh, you're right, I misread the criterion. But since this field has extremely high citation and publication counts, I got curious about how well our apparent citation count criteria compare to the standards in this subtopic. A Scopus overview for Dr. Heiman indicates the total number of documents citing her is 2,556; a document count of 32; an h-index of 17; and a citation-high of 677. I then looked through all of Dr. Heiman's coauthors from 4 papers (her top 2, and then 2 randomly-selected low-citation ones (
1,
2,
3, (
4)) and have listed their current professional position, Ph.D grad year, number of citing documents, publication count, h-index, and highest citation. I have bolded those with better metrics, and italicized the ones with similar credentials to hers. WP article is linked when existing.
TLDR: among her and 36 of her coauthors (all the authors, including lab techs and support staff, but excluding 4 med students who only published one paper), her total citation count, publication count, and h-index were all exactly the median (2556, 32, 17, respectively), and the median highest-citation paper was 673 (compared to her 677). The averages were, respectively, 7945, 112, 32, and 1434 (around 2x or higher than her values). Notably, there are several non-professors/non-project leaders, including several with only a (recent) master's or less, who have more total citations and higher- or comparably-cited papers. Around 1/2 of her coauthors have higher or comparable h-indices. There are also multiple (assistant, associate, and tenured) professors with better metrics across the board who do not have articles (not that this is necessarily a good reason for someone not to have an article).
For further reference, here is the full list of publications with ≥1 citations, with journal, year, citation #, author position, and field-weighted citation impact:
Wow! What a lot or work you have done! She seems to be early career in a very high cited field so
WP:Prof#C1 may be marginal. As for the other people
WP:Other stuff.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 04:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC).reply
Comment It would help to know why the subject wishes the article deleted. (I'm presuming that the request is or can be confirmed as legitimate.) Is there a personal safety risk of some sort? The article doesn't seem too personal or too promotionally-toned; it's the same kind of stuff one might find on a faculty website. Is it outdated or otherwise erroneous?
XOR'easter (
talk) 04:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Jumping in because I am a graduate student in Dr. Heiman's lab who contributed to the making of her Wikipedia page. She directly requested through me to have this page taken down for personal safety reasons. I can provide verification of my membership in her lab if requested. If absolutely necessary, I can ask for Dr. Heiman's permission to provide verification of her request, but I will not post our direct correspondence here due to its private nature.
PgeMIT (
talk) 23:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
On Wikipedia, anybody can claim to be anybody. I could claim to be Donald Trump, although my edit history might cast doubt on that. Wikipedia has formal processes for verifying requests for deletion, which I am sure another editor will guide you to. If not verified, your request for deletion will look like another attack on a female academic.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC).reply
I am happy to go through the proper channels for requests for deletion, if someone would be able to guide me to it. As I have said, I am also willing to provide verification of my identity, but I do not know the best way to do so or if it is necessary in this case, because I am new to Wikipedia. My goal is to address the concerns that people have brought up in a transparent manner. My only request is that you refrain from accusing me of 1) misrepresenting my identity, and 2) attacking female academics when you have no evidence supporting either accusation.
PgeMIT (
talk) 00:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
It will need to be shown that the request to delete comes from the subject. Your identity is not needed. As for the process of verification you could look at
WP:OTRS, but I cannot help more than that as I have never used the process myself. You might like to consult one of the administrators who frequent these pages or ask at the
WP:Tea House.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 01:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC).reply
In
ticket:2021011810009818 PgeMIT confirms their identity. We cannot confirm Dr. Heiman's position, but I would
assume that Pge's statement is accurate in terms of her wish that it is deleted.
Killiondude (
talk) 20:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Normally I'd probably have gone for weak keep with the analysis above about citation counts, but going for weak delete due to the request for deletion by the subject, which I'm taking as legitimate as per
WP:GOODFAITH. On a side note, there is potential for
WP:COI as well, based on comments by PgeMIT. -
Kj cheetham (
talk) 17:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete The argument for wiki-notability would be by way of
WP:PROF#C1, and it doesn't seem to be an outstandingly good case (i.e., standing out in an exceptional way relative to the field). Overall, there just doesn't appear to be a reason to think that this biography is so necessary to understanding the area where Dr. Heiman works that a public benefit exists which outweighs the deletion request.
XOR'easter (
talk) 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete on the basis that the claim that the subject wants deletion is accurate. Notability is borderline here.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 21:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC).reply
Delete based on the deletion request and the below-average metrics. Among her co-authors who hold professorships, the median total citing docs is 5834 (avg 12310; hers is 2556), median publication number is 84 (avg 195, hers is 32), median h-index is 31 (avg 49.7, hers is 17), and median highest-cited paper citation count is 1053 (avg 1325, hers is 677). Her research is important and will likely gain more traction once she's later in her career, but as it stands now the bio is TOOSOON.
JoelleJay (
talk) 06:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. I think the citation counts are enough for
WP:PROF#C1, but there's really not much else, and that makes the case borderline enough that the subject's wishes should prevail. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. In view of some of the material that has entered this AfD I am not surprised that the subject wants her BLP deleted. If it had not been for the subject's wish I would have voted Weak Keep. I seem to remember that deep in the thicket of suggestions that Wikipedia gives to its editors for better editing there is the admonition that students should not write about their teachers. If that advice had been heeded, not to mention
WP:COI, the sorry saga of this AfD could have been avoided.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 07:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC).reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.