From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 17 February 19 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thales Turini

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Never won an ATP level tournament or appeared in an ATP Tour main draw so also fails to meet WP:NTENNIS Adamtt9 ( talk) 18:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to List of The Only Way Is Essex cast members. Restoring redirect as an ATD. But if this result is ignored, then return to AFD for deletion consideration. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

James Bennewith

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

Not enough in-depth significant coverage and significant roles to pass WP:NACTOR. Previously a redirect now contested multiple times without significant improvement. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Split between merge and keep, and the nominator has been blocked as a sock. The merger discussion can be continued on the talk page. Sandstein 08:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Little T Learns to Share

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

Non-notable, self-published book PrelutskyChaos 49 ( talk) 21:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep LA Times, NYT (brief mention), ESPN. There are probably a better three, but I think that demonstrates notability sufficiently. Failing that, merge to Owens' article is a no brainer since it's clear he is notable and the book is verifiable. Jclemens ( talk) 23:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Terrell Owens. The coverage in these sources is very thin, and derived openly from publishers' announcements. Books of this sort are notable because they are written by celebrities, not for their intrinsic value, and in this case the sources are all about the surprise value that this particular sportsman would produce a children's book. They are more about him than the book, in so far as the two can be separated. There is no value in having a separate article about the book.
  • And Comment if the article does survive, are we sure the Courtney Parker two whom the article wiki-links as co-author is actually the singer referred to in our article (of Oklahoma, living in Greece), and not the celebrity ghost-writer referred to by her publisher here [1] and who attended the University of Texas and lives in Los Angeles? [2] If we must have an article about the book, it might as well make a passing attempt at not misleading the reader. Elemimele ( talk) 21:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Terrell Owens: Very sparse stub, in serious need of updating were it to remain. Is it truly Self Published? Author is notable, merge salvageable text and refs into that article 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Nominator has been sock-blocked. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    1. Selection of two sources:
      1. Hochman, Stan (2006-11-16). "Sharing's the word". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-02-24. Retrieved 2023-02-24.

        The article notes: "The book, first in a promised series, is meant for kids ages 3 to 5. The story, told in rhyme, was written by Courtney Parker. The illustrations are by Todd Harris. ... The plot is simpler than a quarterback sneak, you should excuse the expression. Little T has a brand-new football, the laces white as snow. And everywhere that Little T goes, the ball is sure to go. But he refuses to let his friends, Tim and Sam, play with the ball. ... He heads home, plays alone, soon realizes that football is no fun if you have to throw the ball and catch it, too."

      2. Ashworth, Mike (2006-11-16). "Under the Covers". The Scranton Times-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-02-24. Retrieved 2023-02-24.

        The book review notes: "This modern classic is called Little T Learns to Share (BenBella Books, Inc. $14.95), and it's by Terrell Owens "with Courtney Parker" and features illustrations by Todd Harris. ... After reading, "I don't think so, Sam - I'm sorry, Tim -I'mma have to turn ya'll down," it is clear that a great pedagogical mind and literary genius was at work here. If you are curious, the writing doesn't get much better, and even the illustrations are mediocre at best. There's more good news, too. The cover sports a bright red star advertising "First in the T.O.'s Timeouts Series.""

    2. Additional sources:
      1. James, Renee A. (2006-10-15). "T.O. (the author!) writes a children's book on sharing". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2023-02-24. Retrieved 2023-02-24.

        The article notes: ""Little T Learns to Share" tells the story of a young boy who is reluctant to share his football with friends because he is afraid they will "mess it up," according to the book description on Amazon.com. Fortunately for Little T, he soon realizes that football that is truly one-on-one -- as in no other players -- isn't much of a game. His wise mother helps him salvage his friendships. He learns to enjoy sharing, and the rewards that come from playing fair. We have an entire series of children's books, titled "T.O.'s Time Out," to look forward to from Mr. Owens. It appears to be starting out modestly, enough. The first printing of "Little T Learns to Share" is just 10,000 copies, and the publisher will spend $20,000 to market the books to buyers. That's $2 per book to sell 24 pages that retail for $14.95."

      2. Watkins, Calvin (2006-10-06). "T.O. and kids? Book it". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2006-10-11. Retrieved 2023-02-24.

        The article notes: "The often controversial Cowboys playmaker, who made headlines last week for what was determined to be an accidental overdose, will now release his first children's book – Little T Learns to Share. Dallas based publisher BenBella Books said it should hit bookstores in mid-November."

      3. Watkins, Calvin (2007-11-14). "Giving back - Cowboys volunteer efforts for their communities". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-02-24. Retrieved 2023-02-24.

        The article notes: "On Tuesday morning, the Cowboys' most popular children's author, Terrell Owens, was reading to third- and fourth- graders at Woodland Springs Elementary in Keller. Owens' book, Little T Learns To Share, sold 10,000 copies last year and is in its second printing."

      4. Aselstine, Sam (2006-10-08). "T.O. Writing Children's Books?". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-02-24. Retrieved 2023-02-24.

        The article notes: "The first offering from Owens, the Dallas Cowboys' talented wide receiver but highly volatile individual and behavioral-study dream subject, is expected to hit stores in mid-November. It will be entitled "Little T Learns to Share." Little T is the child character of the series whose adventures presumably will teach kids valuable life lessons."

      5. Dahlberg, Tim (2006-10-11). "Ball-hog T.O. urges sharing". Telegram & Gazette. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2023-02-24. Retrieved 2023-02-24.

        The article notes: "For $11.96 you can be the first on your block to order a copy of the bedtime story guaranteed to put your kid to sleep. And the best thing about "Little T Learns To Share" is that there are two more books still to come - "Little T Learns What Not To Say" and "Little T Learns To Say I'm Sorry.""

      6. Hyde, Marina (2006-10-12). "Little T shows football the next stage of ego evolution". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2023-02-24. Retrieved 2023-02-24.

        The article notes: "I have not yet settled down to lose myself in Little T Learns to Share, but the fact that its author is the Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Terrell Owens would appear to mark it out as some kind of literary hoax, until his publisher confirms it is merely the first in a planned five-volume series for children. ... And so to Little T Learns to Share, which TO has authored in the true sporting sense of the word, given that he once snorted at the suggestion he had so much as read his own autobiography. I shan't insult you by reprinting some of his thoughts on the irrelevance of working as a team, but if Terrell can publish a child's manual on sharing, there is food for thought here for our finest literary agents, and you wouldn't give it very long before a slew of copycat volumes hits the shelves like Ben Thatcher's elbow on a grateful face."

      7. Leslie, Jacqueline (November–December 2006). "Little T Learns to Share". Black Issues Book Review. Vol. 8, no. 6. p. 34. ProQuest  217766265.

        The short book review provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The book review notes: "The authors relate a simple lesson about sharing and friendship in this rhyming book, with vibrant and fun pictures. This is the first book from the NFL player's T.O.'s Timeout series."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 11:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It's significantly covered in a number of trusted publications. Not opposed to merging, but I think it warrants its own article by meeting WP:GNG. Justwatchmee ( talk) 01:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Terrell Owens for now. If substantial expansion of the subject occurs, then a discussion can be had about breaking it out again, but for the time being, this content will be most useful if contained in the parent article. BD2412 T 06:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Blahhmosh (
talk) 20:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Proposal without a meaningful rationale; legally recognized populated places are inherently notable (non-admin closure) Dronebogus ( talk) 13:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Fongo-Tongo

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

Article doesn't meet Wikipedia Policy Endrabcwizart ( talk) 19:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 21:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Anaida Deti

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. WP:PROMO. UPE. Refs are PR, press-releases and profiles. No real secondary coverage. scope_creep Talk 19:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 21:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Johanna Leblanc

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

I have nominated this article for deletion due to concerns about notability. I see nothing notable about the subject in the article. Additionally, the article has virtually no legitimate secondary sources. Most of the sources are essentially blog posts. This is a sign that the subject is not notable. I searched Google for Ms. Leblanc and did not see legitimate secondary sources indicating that she is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FiberTacos ( talk • contribs)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, Haiti, and Florida. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, sources seems to be relegated to a couple of promotional university blog posts, as well as some times Leblanc has spoken to the media, but no actual coverage of her, meaning she fails GNG. Article is also heavily promotional Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete she's penned a few articles, but there are no stories about her in RS. Working for famous people isn't GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep not sure where the issue is, the sources are fine. I’ve seen articles with 2-3 sources and have only 1-2 paragraphs, why not delete those? Either way, not sure why a user with 10 edits wants the power to delete articles they perhaps don’t find interesting (or perhaps don’t relate to, as the subject is based outside of America). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreetKnockerzEnt ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    This user's first (and currently only) contribution to WP is to oppose this requested deletion and make ad hominem attacks against me in the process. Very suspect. FiberTacos ( talk) 18:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, I was mistaken on the lack of other contributions. FiberTacos ( talk) 19:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps, as someone whose entire history is more than 50% associated with this one article, you should be judicious with WP:SPA accusations? CT55555( talk) 04:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This person seems very accomplished based on the facts that I can find, but I can't find any independent sources of substance - the most interesting sources are all from the universities she graduated from, and the independent sources are all just short quotes or some such. I'll check back. Lamona ( talk) 04:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral: This is a borderline case. I can certainly see the argument for deleting this, but I am very concerned that a new, unregistered account has fixated on two articles (and only two articles) of subjects that apparently attended the same law school. This sends strong WP:SPA vibes.-- IndyNotes ( talk) 17:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 21:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Zina Mahjoub

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

Ditto with the AfD for Rashad Hashim, no indication that subject actually existed. "Sources" from Arabic-language page is a mirror of WP. Kazamzam ( talk) 18:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Rashad Hashim

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

No indication that this poet existed. Page edits show conflicting accounts of death (murder vs. suicide); no independent search results, no results for the poem "which brought him to prominence" in English or Arabic results per WP:BEFORE. Kazamzam ( talk) 17:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Africa. Kazamzam ( talk) 17:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - unfortunately, this looks to be a hoax as there is nothing in any WP:RS as far as I can see. Thank you for bringing this to AfD. If this is indeed a hoax, then it's one of the longest lasting in Wikipedia's history. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Boulder Fist...oy vey. Kazamzam ( talk) 18:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment: At first I thought this was quite funny as one of the longest lasting hoax articles in project history but the more I think about it, the more concerned I am. This article dates back to April 2007, has had a few dozen edits, and no checks for existence ever took place, let alone sources to confirm notability and warranting inclusion. Drive-by tagging allows junk articles like this to stick around with the presumption that someone, surely, will do something about this eventually and spam will be filtered out. Bots and semi-automated edit tools can tidy the article but there's almost no substitute for the human act of gathering, verifying, and formatting sources. WP:URA should be bursting at the seams with members and it's crickets over there. Kudos to the editors who run those bots and make those edits for stub sorting and importing the short description from Wikidata, but if we had a tenth of that number doing verification work, I believe this lemon would have been in the compost heap maybe a decade ago.
    How can we deal with this, given the size of the problem - 129,000 articles (and those are just the ones tagged!) unreferenced, another 377,000 needing additional sources? This won't be solved in the comments of a random AfD but we cannot continue allowing unreferenced articles to be kicked down the road for someone else to deal with. This should be, edit-wise, priority one. Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk. Kazamzam ( talk) 22:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Here's an interview with a poet who claims to have been reading Rashad Hashim’s work, not a basis for notability, but should put the idea that this is a hoax to rest. God knows where she found a copy of it though. small jars t c 23:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can see other individuals with this name in a search, but not him. Mccapra ( talk) 20:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – This AFD should be considered alongside Zina Mahjoub's, as the two were apparently lovers. small jars t c 21:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think it is probably a delete from me on the basis that we can't verify the information. It might not be an actual hoax, but (obviously) unless someone can find RS which meet the GNG, we can't tell. JMWt ( talk) 22:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Is this deleted arwiki article related? small jars t c 23:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't think so - based on Google Translated this person is Yemeni and born in 2001; at least from the claims of the article under discussion and the Momtaza Mehri article, he was most definitely Sudanese. Kazamzam ( talk) 00:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lacks sources fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 21:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Kareem Mitchum

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

None of those points are relevant to WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Having reviewed all of the sources added, none of them show significant prose coverage. In fact, most are database sources, which are specifically excluded from conferring notability by SPORTBASIC. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
St. Kitts and Nevis has 2 newspapers, a small population and limited internet reach. I don't know what kind of coverage is to be expected of someone in that situation. There's not much more he can do that be a top division player and play for the national team. He's in 8 databases or so and has been mentioned multiple times. ESPN or whatever has never covered a player from St. Kitts and none of us are local to get a magazine or something. None of these teams have websites either and social media websites are not allowed for sources. KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.national-football-teams.com/player/27697/Kareem_Mitchum.html Yes Yes No Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these. ✘ No
https://fbref.com/en/players/61b60427/Kareem-Mitchum No No No Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these. ✘ No
https://www.soccerstand.com/player/mitchum-kareem/vJlr60UQ/ Yes Yes No Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these. ✘ No
https://us.soccerway.com/players/kareem-mitchum/158217// Yes Yes No Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these. ✘ No
https://www.flashscore.es/jugador/mitchum-kareem/vJlr60UQ/ Yes Yes No Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these. ✘ No
https://www.besoccer.com/player/k-mitchum-358108 Yes Yes No Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these. ✘ No
https://www.voetbalkrant.com/saint-kitts-en-nevis/mitchum-kareem/wedstrijden Yes Yes No Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these. ✘ No
https://fr.soccerstats247.com/joueurs/kareem-mitchum-158217/ Yes Yes No Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these. ✘ No
https://www.sknvibes.com/news/newsdetails.cfm/34753 Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://spiceislander.com/the-spice-boys-look-to-go-one-better-in-2010-and-win-the-digicel-cup/ Yes Yes No Squad list mention ✘ No
https://spiceislander.com/honours-a-piece-in-digicel-cup-thriller/ Yes Yes No Squad list mention ✘ No
http://www.theplayersagent.com/profile/133784/kareem_mitchum No No No Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Geovannie Lake

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Liberapay

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

It is difficult to find "significant coverage" to cite. Most content is based on primary sources and insider knowledge of the founder-editor. Yae4 ( talk) 16:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Additional details:

(also @ 0xDeadbeef:)

  • nextinpact.com 2017 citation is biased. It ends, translated, "What I hope for Liberapay is that the project reaches its goal: to allow a better financing of free software, not only software but also art and everything else. I also hope that the public will recognize the huge work that a project like Liberapay represents and support its development more" concludes its co-creator. The next evolutions should be detailed during a conference at the Libre Software Meeting (LSM) in Saint Etienne, France, in early July." It looks based on an embedded Youtube video, which was self-published by Liberapay. Not very independent. Nextinpact Not yet discussed at WP:RSN. Cited about 40 times.
  • linuxfr.org 2016 heading says "Posted by Zatalyz (personal website) on 11/30/16 at 08:32. Edited by 7 contributors. Moderated by ZeroHeure." It appears to be a user-generated group blog post; therefore Unreliable for wikipedia per WP:USERGENERATED. Not discussed at WP:RSN; Cited ~27 times.
  • Numerama citation is a summary description in a list of 5 similar platforms summaries. Not significant coverage. Not discussed at WP:RSN; cited ~70 times.
  • Opensource citation, which I added in Special:Diff/1139491501, is the one apparently reliable source with significant coverage. -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. There are several sources available that should push this to meet GNG, but I'm not entirely sure about the reliability of some of these sources: [3] [4] [5] [6] 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 16:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article has over 100 incoming links from other Wikipedia articles. The 2018 opensource.com article [7], along with additional sources, establishes notability. ( opensource.com has been publishing for over 13 years, and longer under different names before that.) Primary sources in the article (links to liberapay.com) are used primarily to support statements of which projects and organizations use the platform. -- Bensin ( talk) 17:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bensin: There are many more primary sources, including Libera pay Weblate, About (a couple times). Also a Patreon Support post, self-published about Patreon. A few Liberapay Tweets (mea culpa for adding one). -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes there are others, but most of the links to liberapay.com are the ones I added as sources for statements of which projects use Liberapay. If there are better sources for other statements you are of course free to change to them, or remove unsubstantiated statements. -- Bensin ( talk) 19:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources about this website, already included in the article. I really don't understand what made the nominator start this. — Alalch E. 17:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • @ Alalch E.: There was no response to my Notability comment at Talk:Liberapay, and I felt getting uninvolved editor opinions would be good. Yae4, Bensin and Alalch_E. are involved at Liberapay. [8] -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Involved in what sense? — Alalch E. 18:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Editors of the article. -- Yae4 ( talk) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
          • I'm not much of an editor of the article, and even if i was my opinion in this AfD is as welcome as anyone else's. — Alalch E. 19:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
            • Indeed. Even Changaco's opinions are welcome, as primary editor of the article. [9] Uninvolved opinions are usually good or better, however, when backed by guidelines. Yae4 ( talk) 19:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
              • My opinion is better than yours at the very least, judging by your inadequate assessment of a source such as Next INpact. That journalist, Guénaël Pépin, rooting for Liberapay at the end means nothing for evaluating that source( [10]) for the purposes of this discussion. The website is independent from Liberapay, it is a registered, regulated, journalistic outlet that passed CPPAP admission criteria ( link); it exists in the highly-regulated French media landscape. The article is substantial and contains predominantly statements of fact. Mixing some personal opinion with the news at the end is perfectly normal in journalism. That just makes for better, more lively, journalism. This is not just a reliable source. This is the highest-quality source, that is actually usable for determining notability, that I've seen challenged in an AfD for a while. — Alalch E. 20:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yae4, when you write ( here) that "Yae4, Bensin and Alalch_E. are involved at Liberapay." what do you mean by that? -- Bensin ( talk) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Editors of the article. -- Yae4 ( talk) 19:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Update: Added another source, this time Linux Format: Special:Diff/1140182151 — Alalch E. 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
another... Special:Diff/1140184656 — Alalch E. 21:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question @ Yae4: Can you please follow WP:AFDFORMAT and put your replies in the usual places? How is someone supposed to reply to you when you clutter the top with your replies to everyone? It isn't chronological and it's highly odd. — Alalch E. 19:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - With the coverage in sources like Linux Format and opensource.com among others, the article's subject certainly meets WP:GNG and the first point of WP:NSOFT. The content of the article could certainly use cleanup and a lot less reliance on WP:MEDIUM but as a subject notability is there. - Aoidh ( talk) 12:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources demonstrate notability, though the article is in need of cleanup and has some potential COI issues. That isn't an issue for AFD, we aren't at the WP:TNT tipping point. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Article has lots of problems but that is not an AFD issue. Looks like GNG is borderline but satisfied to the normal degree. North8000 ( talk) 20:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pink Floyd#2010—2011: Further performances and rereleases. Viable ATD. None of the keeps are policy based. Star Mississippi 14:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Why Pink Floyd...?

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

WP:NOPAGE: This was marketing campaigning for a series of Pink Floyd album reissues. The campaign itself does not seem independently notable on its own terms and the reissues for each album, where notable, can be sufficiently covered in each individual album article. The reissue campaign was covered in a few reliable sources, such as the Guardian, but there simply doesn't seem to be that much to write about, not enough to justify an entire page.

WP:NOTCATALOG: The article mainly comprises a series of track lists. Popcornfud ( talk) 15:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: this was already discussed previously. I am staunchly against removing information. If it can be improved upon, then let's do that. But deleting information is not helpful. Jmj713 ( talk) 17:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Actually, deleting information is often extremely helpful, as many types of information are out of scope or inappropriate for Wikipedia. See the policies WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTACATALOG and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Popcornfud ( talk) 18:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes and I very much disagree with those policies. Jmj713 ( talk) 22:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: it wasn't deleted the first time around - has the quality of the article declined since then? If it wasn't deleted then, why now? Moreover, any attempts in the past to include the information in this article in the articles for individual albums has been reverted by people who believe information on reissues and box sets to be unsuitable for the albums' articles. – Dyolf87 ( talk) 16:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    it wasn't deleted the first time around - has the quality of the article declined since then?
    Yes. The article has deteriorated into an extensive series of track lists in violation of the policies WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOG, and attracted no further content to justify its existence per WP:NOPAGE.
    If it wasn't deleted then, why now?
    The previous nomination was more than a decade ago. Standards change, as do opinions, and editors. Popcornfud ( talk) 16:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    The article has always been track lists... it has barely changed in a decade. – Dyolf87 ( talk) 09:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Is there any reasonable hope/potential for expanding this at all? As is, this feel mores like a halfway point between a Discogs entry and a promotional campaign from the band more than an entry in a encyclopedia. I don't know if it needs to be entirely erased from Wikipedia, but more of a very selective merge to the respective band and discography articles? Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, this is essentially what I'm proposing. We can summarise the contents of each reissue on each album page — for example, see The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon#Reissues_and_remasters. We wouldn't include the extensive tracklists as we have a policy against that, WP:ALTTRACKLIST. Popcornfud ( talk) 17:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Pink Floyd#2010—2011: Further performances and rereleases per nomination. The coverage is minimal and I don't see much for a notability pass here. The two Billboard articles are quote-heavy and probably based almost entirely on a press release, and the NewsRoomAmerica article (a dead link, this is an archive) is definitely that. I doubt the other sources' reliability. Given the popularity of this band, I would assume this is all already covered in the album articles. If not then merge whatever's good to those. QuietHere ( talk) 17:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey there. Really confused and would deeply appreciate some help. I saw the film Tell My Story, and as a father felt compelled to create a wiki around Jason Reid, who I found notable. Where did I go wrong? LoveofEverything ( talk) 18:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Jason Reid

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

notability is inherited from the Tell My Story documentary 180.150.37.213 ( talk) 07:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Canada, and United States of America. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is far too heavily dependent on reference bombing his potential notability to primary sources that are not support for notability at all — for instance, the word "speaker" is jengastacked with five separate citations, of which three are the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with and the other two just briefly namecheck him as a speaker at a TEDx event without actually being about him in any non-trivial sense. Out of 27 footnotes here, only one counts for anything whatsoever toward meeting WP:GNG, and even that's just a film review that's much more about the film than it is about him. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better. Bearcat ( talk) 18:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just left a message above. I saw the documentary Tell My Story, and I was moved to create an article about Jason Reid, the subject of the film and someone who I saw has done speeches of note (I thought?) - where did I go wrong? The film really impacted me as a father and a human being. Can you please help me? Maybe I can create an article about the film? LoveofEverything ( talk) 18:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree with Bearcat on all counts. -- asilvering ( talk) 01:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Bearcat. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Language Integrated Query. (selective merge) Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Cω

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 14:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 14:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 13:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Ramot Junction attack

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

This article does not pass the WP:GNG. Such events are unfortunately quite common these days. For the United States, we normally wouldn't write an article for an attack with 2 deaths because Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. I do not understand why this attack needs an entire article. My preference is a redirect to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023#10 February. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 07:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Strictly speaking it's 4 dead now, if one includes the attacker. If 2021 Jerusalem shooting with 1 dead can pass muster, why not this one? Selfstudier ( talk) 18:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Selfstudier, is it too large to fit in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023? —  Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 02:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      It can fit, of course, historically it seems there has been a trend to create small articles for every event including those that are relatively minor like the example I gave above. Something occurs and within an hour or two, someone has created an article and once created they tend to stick around. Citations are not usually a problem, all of these events get good citations initially, but then there is no lasting impact in a lot of cases. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article is just like all other articles on ramming and stabbing attacks, and it has good citations, so I don't see why we should delete it.
RowanJ LP ( talk) 02:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, there is absolutely no indication this event passes WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to be a bog-standard event in an increasingly bloody area, that only received coverage over a period of a single news cycle. Deadlier events do not have an articles, so there's no indication why this one should be an exception to NOTNEWS. If there is more coverage down the line, there is nothing stopping the article from being recreated. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.The question whether it is WP:LASTING cannot be determined now so keep for now. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 12:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Gavin Nicol

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

While certainly accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and can't see how they meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 12:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Falls considerably short of WP:NACADEMIC and not evident what other notability there might be. Jeppiz ( talk) 22:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. GS h-index of only 4 in very high cited field fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Delete, clearly doesn't pass NSCHOLAR. I also checked for possible GNG, but the newspaper coverage out there is for other individuals with the same name. -- Mvqr ( talk) 12:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Would this person meet WP:ANYBIO #2: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"? From the write-up it seems that could be true. I don't know if that overcomes the lack of biographical sources, however. Lamona ( talk) 05:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    If his role was truly pivotal in the history of the internet, there would be significant online sources recognizing his specific contributions. Not everyone who was in the WWW consortium is notable. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • comment If you look through the W3C archives and also at the IETF you can see that he made significant contributions to the DOM, I18N, XML, XSL and other specifications. For example, he was responsible for developing the first version of the DOM specification, as noted in the specification: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/production-notes.html, and is also responsible for driving HTML internationalization. (Not having a lot of press coverage doesn’t mean people didn’t have an impact... many pre-internet people have less coverage on the web) if you look at the archives, many of the people that contributed are not widely covered. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1996Sep/author.html - that group ultimately created XML. Rick Jelliffe noted his contributions in http://xml.coverpages.org/jelliffeERCSRetro.html and noting citations in Google Scholar, and the original XSL proposal https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-XSL-970910

And WP:NACADEMIC says if research has had a significant impact then it should be fine. Thanks TechMak ( talk) 20:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The key part of NPROF you're missing is that the person's role has been recognized as significant by independent researchers: In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. You cannot assess someone's impact based on the content they publish or what non-independent organizations say about them. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Going through the first 6 pages of G-Scholar I rack up at least 610 cites to his works. I also find his works cited in at least 2 dozen books (I quit scrolling at that point), and mentions of him outside of cites, like this. He seems to also have his name on at least one patent. It's very hard to judge this because a tech standards developer is not the same as an academic (no 'publish or perish' push). I'm remaining neutral. Lamona ( talk) 01:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
610 cites is very small for this high cited field and h-index is tiny: far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC). reply
What is the field to which you refer? And where do you see what cite numbers it normally has? As for "too soon" - this person is nearing retirement from what I can tell. He was giving talks at web-related conferences in 1995: Nicol, G. T. (1995, December). DYNA WEB Integrating Large SGML Repositories and the WWW. In Fourth International World Wide Web Conference (pp. 549-558). Lamona ( talk) 04:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The field is computer science. [11] gives nearly 22,000 cites for a person known to some of us. Such numbers are not uncommon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC). reply
I don't think that a standards developer should be compared to a professor. Those are very different activities. That is why the second bullet of NACADEMIC fits this case. If you develop standards that become used by millions of web sites and thousands of developers, you have had an impact that is not measured by cites. Lamona ( talk) 16:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The impact still has to be noted and attributed to the subject in secondary, independent scholarly sources. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
He may have done stuff but few have noted it. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC). reply

continued His name is on 2 standards that are used by every browser, and the work established the technical foundation for I18N on the web... so it's incorporated into things people use every day. Mentioned here by Francois as seminal: https://www.w3.org/International/francois.yergeau.html Mentioned as being seminal by Rick: http://xml.coverpages.org/jelliffeERCSRetro.html IETF draft that led to rfc2070: https://www.w3.org/International/draft-ietf-html-i18n-05.txt RFC7303 attribution: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7303 (standard) Rfc2110 attribution: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2110 (standard) Attributed here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-html-cda Attribution in this presentation: https://slideplayer.com/slide/4709286/ Referenced here: https://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/html-authoring.html Referenced here: https://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#Nicol (standard) Referenced here: https://www.w3.org/International/tomas.carrasco.benitez.html Referenced in this thesis: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=cs_etds Referenced in this thesis: http://people.hum.aau.dk/~ulrikp/PhD/Sandborg-Petersen-PhD.pdf Referenced in this thesis: https://digibug.ugr.es/bitstream/handle/10481/48333/26785195.pdf?sequence=1 Referenced in this thesis: https://theses.hal.science/tel-00006373/document Referenced in X.1141 : Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML 2.0) (standard) https://www.itu.int/itu-t/workprog/wp_a5_td.aspx?i...https://www.itu.int › itu-t › workprog › wp_a5_td Bio/attribution: https://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc16/b040.html Notes on standards: https://www.xml.com/pub/2000/10/18/standards/index.html Quote: https://www.w3.org/Press/DOM-core.html XSL History: https://www.delightfulcomputing.com/xslfaq/xsl/sect1/history.html Elastos: https://medium.com/@CyberRepublic/elastos-rights-management-platform-suggestion-6b44f4e0182 WWW 2005 conference: https://www2005.org/tutorials.html Examplotron: http://examplotron.org/0/4/ LMNL mention: https://www.xmlhack.com/read.php_item=1790 XTND: http://xml.coverpages.org/xtnd.html Referenced in Foundations of markup languages https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110224948.83/pdf Basilage: https://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol7/html/Johnsen01/BalisageVol7-Johnsen01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechMak ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

None of these are all of independent, reliable, secondary, and substantial. Bare citations, his name being in documentation, accolades from companies he worked for/colleagues, etc. do not count towards NPROF. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Continued I am sending these things because the field is different and I hope someone would look in to it. A reference from Tim Bray https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2019/03/11/Lights-Going-Out Similar people on Wikipedia Rick_Jelliffe, Steven_DeRose, Dan_Connolly_(computer_scientist), Dave_Raggett, James_Clark_(programmer), Bert_Bos, Jon_Bosak. Something a bit more recent: https://open-music.org/our-api and https://open-music.org/blog/2016/10/3/deploy-deploy-deploy-dispatch-from-the-omi-tech-meeting - and this project most recently https://www.commoditygenomeproject.org/resources He wrote the ontology for this, which is available at: https://github.com/commoditygenome/CGP-core-description-framework — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechMak ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

continued comment As noted by Lamona, holding standards developers to the citation requirements of academics is inappropriate. Better measures of impact are inclusion of the standards into other standards, and adoption of the standards into everyday life. In the case of this person, their work on I18N directly led to standards that were included into the HTML and XML standards, and they made significant contributions to the DOM standard, and XSL among others. Those contributions are credited in the standards themselves, and those standards are some of the most widely adopted and influential standards on the web. It would be fair to say that if you are using Wikipedia, you are benefitting from the fruits of this labor.

That this should suffice is evidenced by the pages referenced above, and many others like them, where the primary notability of the individuals is in their standards work. Some of those people have more citations because they are more academic, or were more widely promoted, but few can claim to have their names on more than a single standard in use every day by every participant on the web. Note that some of those people - themselves experts in the field, directly credit this persons work.

Wikipedia is at least partly about capturing the historical record - the people, events and technologies that have influenced society. Obviously it needs to be protected from garbage and this is far from the case here. Being included and credited by name in multiple international standards (which are about the most independent and reliable documents you can get) is notable and these standards are universally adopted. In terms of citations - it’s like every application on the web citing the work. TechMak ( talk) 20:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

If you want to change policy you should do that on a policy page, not on an AfD. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Delete. It's clear from the article, from Google Scholar, and from the discussion above, that Nicol is not an academic and does not meet our standards for academic notability. That's not itself proof that he is non-notable; it only means we must use another standard. The only plausible standard to use is WP:NBIO, which demands in-depth coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. But we don't have that, either; all we have is primary sources about the technology he developed. One might hope for some articles about the history of WWW standards that might go into detail about the role he played in developing those standards, but I didn't find any. So unfortunately, he doesn't appear to pass NBIO either. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 12:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Government Degree College, Amarpur

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

Institution with no evidence of WP:NORG being met. Best sources I can find are iCBSE and Entrance Exams India, neither are even close to WP:SIRS. I considered redirecting but there are so many targets such as

All equally as valid as each other so I didn't consider redirecting to be an appropriate action. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 12:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Darren Coleman (cybersecurity)

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

BLP lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Canada. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Two local newspaper articles announcing that he was invited to speak; failed verification at sources Toastmasters and Harvard; participated in a book from "Celebrity Press" which exists to promote. I don't find anything else, and rather suspect PAID. Lamona ( talk) 17:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) states: “Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable [emphasis mine], even if their population is very low.” This is a substantial village of over 7000 people, not a tiny uninhabited blip in the middle of nowhere that happens to appear in a database. As such there is no way this AfD even remotely passes muster. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus ( talk) 10:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

San Martin, California

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

Sources consist of government records, mostly census records. No SIGCOV. Strictly local interest. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 08:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 12:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Citrix Technology Professional

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

Article on a certification sourced entirely to the company that provides it and to one guy who holds it. I was unable to find anything else useful. Maybe mergeable to Citrix, but probably just delete. ℰmi1y⧼ T· C⧽ 08:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. ℰmi1y⧼ T· C⧽ 08:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a internal award/certification that doesn't have notability outside the company. Joyous! | Talk 17:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando ( talk) 13:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree, this isn't a suitable topic for a standalone article. Fails GNG. HighKing ++ 18:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bulletin board system#The first BBSes. And thanks to the editors who take the time to peruse discussions that have been relisted 3 times! It's appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

GBBS

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

Unsourced article about an BBS software which does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 03:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Doesn't look like it - that documentary is about BBSes in general, which we have well covered. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 06:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there has been low participation. And while I will carry out consenus, I'm reluctant to draftify a 14 year old article when there is no one stepping forward stating they want to work on it. That's just a slow road to Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • weak keep - I think this is quite hard because of the age of the article and lack of volunteers to improve it. On the other hand, it appears that published books and other sources exist. So in terms of policy it feels like it ought to be a !vote for keep no matter the current state of the page. But I can't say I like it. JMWt ( talk) 10:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for some more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Bulletin board system#The first BBSes where the Apple II and its BBS are discussed; quite enough is written there already. It would be even better if a usable source could be found to support that uncited redirect target section. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Also sensible, as long as the unsourced article does not remain in mainspace. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 12:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - Chiswick Chap's redirect target is sensible, especially if the alternative is to move it to draft where nobody is going to do anything with it. If and when it's improved it can be reverted into a standalone article, and with a redirect the history is still there for someone who wants to work on it. - Aoidh ( talk) 16:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as suggested. This page is fourteen years old, has zero citation, and possesses zero reliable sourcing. It's entirely OR. Merely hoping this page will get sourced one day hasn't been a workable strategy yet. Nothing whatsoever has been presented during this three week AfD! I'm leaning towards delete, but I'll settle for a redirect. BusterD ( talk) 04:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm going to close this as No Consensus, realizing that it might make a reappearance at AFD in the future.

I was just struck by Buster's comment and went to see that there have been 7,593 edits to this page over its lifetime. I'm not sure if it was deleted and there was a Deletion review, whether or not a regular admin could even restore this page so editors could review it. This wasn't the primary factor in my close but I'd like there to be a stronger consensus to Delete this article before removing such a long-standing article from the project despite its shortcomings. It would be nice if some of our editors who focus on contemporary music and guitarists could spend some time improving this 17 year old list article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Gibson players

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

This is just a list of commercial endorsements, therefore violates WP:PROMO. Kind of an inverse catalog of equipment, so also violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTCATALOG. Mikeblas ( talk) 01:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Just i yaya 04:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There's not really any policies about this (other than this particular instance much failing WP:NLIST), but I would agree with removing all "Players" sections or mentions from musical instrument companies unless that person's endorsement has been incredibly important to the company (e.g., they have a major model with the company like Les Paul with Gibson or they're Ringo Starr who catapulted Ludwig to world fame). Why? I Ask ( talk) 04:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The NLIST requirement is met by publications such as The Gibson Electric Guitar Book: Seventy Years of Classic Guitars (2007, ISBN  9780879308957) which documents the guitar players along with various Gibson guitar models, and by Billboard magazine's online list of "11 Guitarists Who Rock Gibson Guitars, From Chuck Berry to Dave Grohl". There's also the GuitarGuitar list of "Top Ten Les Paul Players of All Time" (a Gibson model) and NDTV's list of "5 Guitarists Who Helped Make Gibson An Iconic Guitar Brand". Whatever problems may be seen at the article right now are not because the list is not supported by sources. Binksternet ( talk) 08:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    I disagree. While it's certainly fine to add a brief mention on the Gibson Les Paul page that notable players such as "blah-blah" have made the guitar their signature instrument, a list of people that use a brand of anything is not really of much encyclopedic value, regardless of how many "Top 10" lists there are (these lists are worthless for meeting WP:NLIST, in my opinion; often clickbait slideshows with very little encyclopedic value). We could have a list of drivers that use Ford [12] or people that enjoy Supreme merch [13] if that was our criteria for such lists. And yeah, a book dedicated to Gibson is going to list players and their axe of choice. Modern Drummer always has spreads of what famous drummers are playing what. Hell, there are even books of it [14]. But it would be a dark day on Wikipedia if List of Mapex players was created. Why? I Ask ( talk) 08:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Perhaps your concern should be aimed at the NLIST criteria. I don't see why evidence that the list is found in multiple forms in the media is somehow not sufficient for this list article to meet NLIST. I found another archived list by Mixdown magazine: "The 13 most iconic Gibson Les Paul players of all time". The fact that the media is interested in making lists of this sort is enough evidence for me. Binksternet ( talk) 09:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Lists get views and media knows this. It's why WatchMojo was so popular. Nice digestible information to waste your time on, but not encyclopedic. Wikipedia's list guidelines overlook a lot of context; it's our job to use common sense. Why? I Ask ( talk) 09:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As mentioned before, this list violates WP:NOT. The existence of Gibson players may be mentioned in the Gibson article. The list is for the company to carry. gidonb ( talk) 02:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as some of the opinions expressed here are not put forth very strongly. Of course, a closer can close this discussion at any time they see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I've got a few concerns here, none of them minor, but none disqualifying. 1) There's a vast number of unsourced assertions applied to the page, scores of CN tags, including those about living people. 2) Of the three criteria used to determine qualification for the list, all three of them seems to have a subjective component (long and faithful, historical importance, contributed significantly). 3) While the three stated criteria seem to narrow this field a bit, this list doesn't seem to be truly defining. Gibson started making guitars in 1902; perhaps hundreds of thousands of humans can claim honestly to be "Gibson players." With over 7,500 revisions I can see a long history of insertion and reversion of players of various and debatable qualification. I should admit this is not my field of study. BusterD ( talk) 04:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Cowboys–Vikings rivalry

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

There's essentially one reliable source that states this is an outright "rivalry" and that one only says it was a rivalry 50 years ago - in the 1970s. There are no sources that call it a rivalry from the period spanning the 1980s to the present. They play games against each other from time to time - just like any other 2 random NFL teams that are in the same conference. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 03:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Minnesota, and Texas. Skynxnex ( talk) 04:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Haven't done the research, but I would note that there are many "former" rivalries (e.g., Chicago–Michigan football rivalry) that have ceased or otherwise lost their shine. If the series was a rivalry in the 1970s, it doesn't become not notable due to the fact that the rivalry has faded. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Cbl62 ( talk) 04:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this page was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowboys-Vikings Rivalry. The article title was later changed to match formatting of other rivalry pages. Frank Anchor 04:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per rationale given in the previous AFD, where it was demonstrated with several sources that this was once a significant rivalry. While not much of one anymore, WP:NTEMP applies. Highway 89 ( talk) 07:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that several sources establish that this was a notable rivalry. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Despite the nominators claim of otherwise, there are in fact sources that speak of it as a rivalry from the 1980s and onward. [21] [22] [23](part 1 [24], part 2 [25]) The fact that its height was in the 1970s does not make it any less significant as notability is not temporary. Alvaldi ( talk) 10:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per above. We already did this. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 13:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there are plenty of sources that this was a rivalry in the 1970s. So it was a notable rivalry in the 1970s. Notability is not temporary. Rlendog ( talk) 17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:GNG and previous AFD considered the sources reliable and enough to pass. No reason has been given to overturn the previous AFD.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I originally voted “delete” in the first AFD but struck that vote after sources were added establishing a rivalry. The sources are still present and notability is not temporary so there is no reason to change a keep close (though I believe the nominator started this AFD without knowing the first one happened due to a different article title). Frank Anchor 23:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I believe it's been established that this was a generally notable rivalry and that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP, per all above. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 22:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I see consensus here to Keep this article. Whether or not the article is a WP:CONTENTFORK depends on whether or not the article will be expanded beyond content taken from another article and there seems to be the sense that this expansion will occur. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

1974 Xenia tornado

1974 Xenia tornado (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK that was created as an exact copy/paste of 1974 Super Outbreak. Ultimately, it serves no purpose other than to duplicate information. Some discussion had taken place prior to this article's creation at Talk:1974 Super Outbreak. Generally, it is unhelpful to split/duplicate information when it can be easily condensed into one place for the convenience of the reader. United States Man ( talk) 02:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep — This is not a complete content fork. Some information was removed, which isn’t necessarily about the tornado’s summary. Having a stand-alone article allows for the the tornado summary to be separated from the aftermath (which included a President’s visit). Extremely notable tornado, very famous and well-known one, and the article is in good enough shape to be a stand-alone article. Noting, I am the article’s creator. Elijahandskip ( talk) 02:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Extra comment: Nominator was told by an admin in User talk:Elijahandskip#Draft:1974 Xenia tornado they should nominate for deletion rather than redirecting it, which borderlined the 3RR rule and came very close to being disruptive editing. Elijahandskip ( talk) 03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I copied the content from the main article and pasted it into the text window, and nothing changed. That is, by definition, a content-fork. United States Man ( talk) 02:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
USM, I don't pretend to understand what is going on here, but you need to remove the commentary about the author's motivations from your deletion rationale. Keep this focused on content, do not comment on the contributor. Please amend your nomination in your next edit. Girth Summit (blether) 03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Concern has been addressed. Girth Summit (blether) 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - I support the idea of this article being deleted in its current state on the merits of being a content fork. Simply copy and pasting its section from the main tornado outbreak article into a standalone page without any additional information clearly meets the definition of a content fork and satisfies the criteria for article deletion. However, if Elijahandskip plans to expand this article imminently, then I very strongly oppose deleting the article. Of the tens of thousands of tornadoes that have ever occurred in the United States, Xenia is probably the second or third most well known tornado to most people. There are scores of articles that move beyond the environment or beyond the damage it caused in the moment. There is plenty of information about its aftermath/legacy. Work just needs to be put in to expand the article. wxtrackercody ( talk · contributions) 03:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
That's also fine with me, but copy/pasting article material is generally not acceptable. Just not sure how much more information there is to expand on, unless deep digging is done. United States Man ( talk) 03:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Copy/pasting is generally fine when creating new articles, and common practice in many situations, but it needs to be done with attribution to meet the terms of our copyright licence. Guidance is at WP:CWW, please all involved take note. (I haven't checked whether this has been done in this case - it can be done retrospectively, do so if necessary. I really need to go to sleep) Girth Summit (blether) 03:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Maybe with further reduction of the section at 1974 Super Outbreak, mainly because the outbreak article, at 89 kb prior to the split, is borderline WP:TOOBIG. So the outbreak article could stand to be trimmed a bit by splitting off some topics. If it is not kept, then I would opt to merge rather than delete, since the redirect is a likely search term. Page protection might be needed in that case, if further edit warring is likely.I also second Wxtrackercody that expanding the page for the tornado would help it. TornadoLGS ( talk) 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Work in progress. I've started adding new information into it. I discovered multiple sources indicating some new details in the timeline and such as well as slight time corrections from what was in the outbreak article's section. I'm not good at writing the typical meteorological synopsis sections, but the supercell produced other tornadoes, so having a section like that might be useful and would help expand the article with new & specific content. I attempted to remove some of the information in the outbreak section, but I think it needs to be re-written with less specific information and such since the entire tornado summary is in the article now. Elijahandskip ( talk) 04:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this is one of the strongest tornadoes to ever occur and is a notable topic in itself. There is quite a bit more content here, and well-sourced content at that, than there is at 1974 Super Outbreak#Xenia, Ohio. If this were to be merged back into that article, the section would be twice to three times as long as the sections for the other major tornadoes of the outbreak. Perhaps the 1974 outbreak section could be pared down some and the remainder of that content merged with this article, instead of the other way around. Highway 89 ( talk) 07:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ohio. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - Per above. The tornado is highly notable in and of its own, but for as long as information not already present in the section of the article is found and added, this tornado's article is on thin ice for me. Mjeims ( talk) 14:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is one of the most notable tornadoes of all time, and the Super Outbreak article should be split per WP:SIZERULE as well. The outbreak article will go too in-depth on the Xenia tornado, per WP:DUE, unless this article is created. I will note we split off the 2011 St. Louis tornado which was a lot less notable then this one. 71.125.62.208 ( talk) 14:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 18:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - assuming content continues to be added to expand this article, as plenty of information seems to exist that was not incorporated into the outbreak article's Xenia section. Generally I think it would have been better to begin the article in draftspace or userspace first, so as to address WP:CONTENTFORK concerns before it ended up in mainspace, but here we are. I say go for it. Penitentes ( talk) 00:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Per Penitentes.
Poodle23 ( talk) 15:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The coverage of the Xenia tornado indicates significance on its own. Joyous! | Talk 17:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Tornado is significant and notable enough to warrant an article. Tails Wx 23:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Suryaputra Mahavir Karna

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

The film has not commenced shoot because it has no actors (the lead actor left the film). The film has been shelved. This film was apparently the most expensive Malayalam film to be made but after it became a Tamil/Hindi film the budget is not significant. DareshMohan ( talk) 01:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Draftify. It may become notable, but isn't yet, with many of the Keeps lacking policy. It can be improved until it meets N:FILM Star Mississippi 12:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Animal (2023 film)

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

Fails WP:NFF. Also, WP:TOOSOON. Needs to be deleted or moved to DRAFT until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

What makes the production itself notable? When principal photography has been covered by multiple WP:RS? It has. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 12:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
So 4 are not. :) Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 12:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Well sourced, and can have more sources added. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify : All Reference film announcement, Shooting start and release date but the film's production is not completed.

‪AShiv1212‬ ( talk) 21:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Where does it say shooting must be complete for a film to have its own article? Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 06:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films : Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines AShiv1212 ( talk) 07:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Please read "films produced in the past". This is not a film produced in the past. It is currently filming. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 07:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per Krimuk. Shahid • Talk2me 10:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per nomination, filming already started and going on, few leaks from set as well and most important not every Indian film is shot at Pataudi Palace. C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and, as stated, just because a film has started shooting doesn't guarantee that the filming will be completed, the film will be released and be considered notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Unless WP:NFF is explicitly changed to say that no film should have an article unless it is released, we shouldn't be deleting articles for films that are currently filming. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 06:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
That's not at all what I was saying. I didn't say that "no film should have an article unless it is released", I meant that starting to film a movie doesn't guarantee that there should be an article on a movie. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply
That's fine, but this one has adequate referencing at this point to warrant an article. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - This upcoming Indian movie should have gone for the notability. And also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
CastJared ( talk) 19:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Meets the necessary criteria to justify an article. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Like Miller's Girl, I don't see that NFILM's criteria for films in production is met: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. I'm relisting to see if there is more support for Draftication.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Does not appear notable, news coverage seems speculative. Delte as per WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't seem to me meet WP:GNG. CT55555( talk) 03:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify; normally I'm not a huge fan of draftify as it's often a half-hearted way to delete in 6 months, but it's totally appropriate for an up-coming film. We are not the news, we are not a PR site, we have all the time in the world. There is no hurry. If the film turns out as big as is promised, there will be no problem in moving the draft to main-space as soon as it's ready. For the moment, the only films that should get into main-space before they've even appeared are those where there has been some mega-issue meaning that they've got a lot of independent coverage pre-release. This would normally be films with a huge scandal attached to their production, or a massive news-story involving some of the main people involved. Routinely-being-produced films shouldn't be in main-space merely because someone's leaked some information about them (if nothing else, it just encourages PR people to leak). Elemimele ( talk) 12:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Consensus is it does not meet N:FILM, but is most likely too soon vs. not notable at all, therefore draftification, where it can also be improved, until release makes sense. Star Mississippi 12:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Miller's Girl

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not yet the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from WP:NFO. As always, Wikipedia does not want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every single film that enters the production pipeline -- for any number of reasons, films that enter production don't always come out the other end as finished films, and even a finished and released film can still fail to meet notability criteria at all, so films normally aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia until they have been released and are garnering real reviews from professional film critics.
There is a common (but erroneous) belief that films are automatically entitled to have articles as soon as principal photography has commenced, but NFILM explicitly states that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" -- but with just two casting announcements and a six-year-old listicle of unproduced screenplays, this does not yet have enough sourcing to establish that.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when it does come out and start getting reviewed, but a couple of casting announcements is not enough coverage for it to already have an article now. Bearcat ( talk) 23:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. It could be notable later, but it just isn't right now. Stopasianhate ( talk) 01:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
that's a matter of personal opinion - if it weren't notable, it wouldn't have extensive coverage in the trades, or the talent attached to it. TheMovieGuy ( talk) 01:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON, but the article could return if the film turns out to be notable. TH1980 ( talk) 03:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. It meets notability based not only on the fact that is is a real thing that has completed production and is a well sourced and written article - which is basis enough for it to exist in the main space - but it also has a number of name stars including the lead actor from The Hobbit as well as the lead actress from Netflix's hit series Wednesday and is based off a script once featured on the exclusive Blacklist of Hollywood best unproduced scripts. This is not some obscure film, low budget student film. TheMovieGuy ( talk) 01:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Draft: Until more coverage happens. Mike  Allen 16:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The significant coverage via Deadline in three distinct articles means that per WP:GNG - the film has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and we can therefore presume this film satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Further, there is additional coverage meeting the criteria via Colliderand The Times of India. This is one of those matters where both GNG and the film notability guideline ought to be considered. The guideline on future films indicates that films which have begun shooting can be notable provided the production is notable. At this time, casting, a stage of production, has attracted media attention as evidenced by the above articles. I also turn to my perception of the guidelines which is this: We cannot have an article on every single film or potential film. There needs to be some notice or recognition by reliable media or publishing in order to demonstrate sufficient interest or notability in a topic to make it appropriate for inclusion. I think this article is consistent with the spirit of our notability standard both general and film subject specific. On balance, I consider keeping the article to be most appropriate - MaxnaCarta ( talk) 03:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
We need a lot more than just a small handful of production coverage to deem a film notable enough for inclusion in advance of its release. The bar for inclusion of an unreleased film is not "three or four hits of casting and production coverage can be found" — it's "if the film collapses tomorrow and never, ever gets completed or released at all, then would it still somehow manage to stay notable twenty years from now anyway?" The recently shelved Batgirl remake is an example of the kind of film that would clear that bar; the vast majority of films are not. Bearcat ( talk) 21:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
You have a valid argument. Nominating this for deletion was not an absurd decision by any means. On balance I think it's fine to keep for the reasons I mentioned. On balance is doing the heavy lifting here. Sometimes there is an unequivocal correct choice to either keep or delete. Not so here I feel. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 22:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Filming has not started yet, it is too early to have an article here. Sawelito ( talk) 03:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Sawelito, you clearly have not even looked at the article. There are sources to indicate filming has happened - it started production in September 2022. TheMovieGuy ( talk) 01:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: Until the film has been released, I don't see it justifying an article until it has been. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

    • hundreds of films in production have articles, the existence of the film - and the coverage of its active production in the trades - is sufficient enough justification I believe. TheMovieGuy ( talk) 02:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      • The only reason hundreds of films in production have articles is because certain editors tend to disregard what WP:NFILM actually says about unreleased films, which is that the overwhelming majority of films should not have articles until they're released. Films are not routinely supposed to have Wikipedia articles while they're in production; it's just that the onslaught of editors who create such articles anyway far, far exceeds the capacity of WikiProject Film to actually stay on top of them. Bearcat ( talk) 21:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Readers of Wikipedia have the right to know and be informed about all films being actively produced versus just the ones that have been released. Relevancy is established by coverage and prestige - this is why short films, student films, amateur work generally speaking don't get articles. Because no one cares. People care to read about films being actively produced. People anticipate movies - and they actively want to know what's going on with them. Thus, the creation of articles as films actively go into principal production. Sure, the film may linger undistributed for a period of time or - rarely - end up not released at all but most of the time that is not the case. TheMovieGuy ( talk) 15:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the WP:SIGCOV provided by User:MaxnaCarta. Frank Anchor 19:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: According to NFILM, Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. I don't see that coverage or notabiity in the present version of this article. But I am relisting this discussion to see if both those advocating Delete and Keep would be okay with Drafticiation until this film can have demonstrable notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

*
  • Draftification is almost always appropriate for unreleased films. It's only inappropriate for very exceptional cases, as I stated in the AfD for Animal (2023 film). Elemimele ( talk) 12:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Drafitfy, as per my original !vote for above. Mike  Allen 14:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ MikeAllen: From my view, WP:DISCUSSAFD states You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line. IMHO, while you make it clear that you still stand with my original !vote for draft, this seems to be another bolded recommendation on a new bullet line. If it's possible, could you unbold your vote here make it clearer? Thanks. Update: Thanks for your unbolding. VickKiang (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Drafitfy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim daowd ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- Users, film fans and fans of Ortega (who has over a million followers on social media) deserve to be kept aware of the existence and active production of the film itself. TheMovieGuy ( talk) 00:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
User:TheMovieGuy, unless I'm mistaken you casted this bolded keep vote on 06:41, 6 February 2023. Given that one editor only gets a single vote, I've strikethrough your bolded part. Of course, you can continue to comment and expand upon your views. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_February_18&oldid=1141619232"