Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 07 February 09 >

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 delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 East Africa Premier League

[edit]
2012 East Africa Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tournament which fails WP:NCRIC. There is very little coverage of the event beyond what would be WP:ROUTINE (mostly scorecards on Cricinfo). Also fails WP:EVENT as there is no WP:LASTING effect ten years on. WP:GNG not really satisfied either.

I am also nominating the following related pages per the above:

2011–12 East Africa Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) StickyWicket (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Ahmad Maqari

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. The subject has no significant coverage in sources cited in the article, as well as few other I checked which are not cited. Multiple paragraphs uncited, and WP:Citation overkill just for the statement: "He is the present Imam of the National Mosque Abuja, he's always straddling between Abuja, Zaria and Kano on a weekly basis." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Kavyansh.Singh
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-55932475 Yes Per WP:RS/PS#BBC Yes Per WP:RS/PS#BBC unable to judge due to the article being in a foreign language ? Unknown
https://sheikhmaqary.com.ng/e-books No apparently a self published website No looks like someone's personal website No merely some pdfs of books ✘ No
https://www.abujanationalmosque.org/management/ No primary source, website of the Mosque No No I don't see a single mention of "Ibrahim Maqari" ✘ No
https://www.blueprint.ng/appoint-chief-imam-for-national-mosque-abuja/ Yes media outlet with independent coverage Yes No just one passing mention ✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/time-to-appoint-chief-imam-for-national-mosque Yes media outlet with independent coverage Yes No passing mentions ✘ No
https://www.legit.ng/1414305-paying-ransom-kidnappers-permitted-islam-islamic-cleric.html not sure No passing mentions, merely using Maqari's statements does not make his notable. ✘ No
https://dailynigerian.com/hausa/saudiyya-ce-ke-horas-da-yan-taadda-babban-limamin-abuja/ Yes media outlet with independent coverage Yes No one passing mention ✘ No
https://hausa.legit.ng/1426412-abduljabbar-sheikh-maqary-ya-yi-karin-haske-bayan-wasu-kalamansa-sun-tada-kura.html not sure Yes ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is also so poorly written from a grammatical perspective that it's an embarrassment and detraction to Wikipedia. Ira Leviton (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Because the grammatical perspective were fixed and furthermore English is not our native language! We're all here to give our contributions best on our little knowledge. Nobody is perfect, so I think that's the advantage of everyone can edit Wikipedia pages as far as he had created an account and has the ability to do so with the wiki rules. Ira Leviton you can help us and fixed some grammatical errors. thank you all Salihu Aliyu (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Salihu Aliyu, I agree that prose and grammar issues should not be a reason for deleting an article. At AfD, we determine notability. But, if the topic is not notable, then no level of editing can make it notable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep consensus is this meets GEOLAND Star Mississippi 01:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guthrie, Arizona

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

The previous nomination appears to have been an act of spite, but in reexamination I find that this seems to have been nothing more than a rail spot which evaporated with the steam locomotive. No evidence that it was a town, and the current houses nearby have no relation to the older place. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The GNIS entry says there was a post office there 1901-22 and a Wells Fargo office. this article] shows there was scheduled train service. this] shows it was a junction of two railroads, the Morenci Southern Railroad and the Arizona and New Mexico Railway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 2022-02-09T01:12:49 (UTC)
  • Delete - irrelevant locality name. Is there any reliable reference to show that the name is in use - other than in some ancient almanac or railway timetable? Why not add a mention in the relevant county article? Silent Billy (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arcadia Publishing has this, once again. Guthie was a "town" per Chilicky & Hunt 2015, p. 19. So we know what it specifically was, rather than the generic "populated place". The GNIS description is rubbish, the sort of thing that one expects from the GNIS given how that particular sausage was made. Myrick 1984, p. 65 is clearer, giving a better explanation. Guthrie Smith was not in fact the sheriff of Guthrie mining town, but a director of the mining company. He was a Sheriff of Banff.
    • Chilicky, Robert A.; Hunt, Gerald D. (2015). Clifton and Morenci Mining District. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9781467134316.
    • Myrick, David F. (1984). Railroads of Arizona: The southern roads, Volumes 1–3. Howell-North Books. ISBN 9780831071110.
  • I found a few more sources about this mining town, and there's probably a short paragraph of stuff that one could wring from them. The population was "about 30" in 1922, for example. Pretty much nothing in the present article is helpful for a rewrite, its sole sources being the unreliable GNIS and a "hometown locator" with not a single actual history book in sight, and this article at present is verifiably false.

    Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • GNIS is perfectly reliable for the location and elevation, which is all it really sources. The fact that you agree this was a small mining town validates its existence, therefore it meets Wp:NGO. MB 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a dramatic U-turn from where, only a few bullet points above, you were arguing that it sources stuff about Wells Fargo. I specifically said the GNIS description, which is not something that I agree with, because that description talks about a "Sheriff Guthrie Smith" rather than advocate John Guthrie Smith, as I already explained.

        And if one knows how the GNIS sausage was made, one realizes that it isn't even reliable for location data, as some locations were taken from where the words were on the map, which in some cases were just the middles of areas (with not even dot markers), resulting in an erroneous precision. Then there's what Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data relates about the … variety of sources that were used to compile the GNIS data back in the 20th century. Hubbard, Indiana (AfD discussion) is in fact a good case in point. The Hubbard farm was a 704 acre tract of prairie land, not an exact point, and we know where it was (which is not where the GNIS coöordinates, taken from the word on a map, put it) because the Haven Hubbard Home is still there.

        In any other context an article whose sole content was verifiably false would be unequivocally a hoax article. Policy is not a suicide pact, and does not require us to keep outright falsehoods in article space until someone ambles along years from now to fix them. After all, the article does not say that this was (not is) a small mining town, and since I'm in fact the first to say that I'm not really agreeing with anyone, here or the writers of the article.

        Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't have access to the printed sources, but I will accept the above assertion that Guthrie had a population of 30 in 1922 and was a small mining town. Meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is this the same Guthrie that has a listed bridge (pages 392-395)? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect example of how texts referring to a place as the location of something are not strong references. You can look at the map shown in the document and see that the bridge is not particularly near Guthrie; it's actually somewhat closer to Two Way. And of course, it doesn't say anything about what Guthrie was. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
tks Mangoe, agree, it was just me going down an interesting (for those who like bridges:) rabbit hole. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fooya

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

This is an obvious advertisement for an App. I am somewhat unsure of the notability, however, some of the sources are misrepresented and at least one led me to a malicious website. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my dilemma. There are some legitimate sources, but the article is written as an advertisement. If it was the work of a single editor, I'd put it for G11. If notability was obvious, I'd request it be cleaned up. It's not naked spam, so no, I am not convinced I should change my wording. --SVTCobra 23:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: I would also note that User:Chippadum who created the article might have undisclosed COI or paid editing given that it had promotional language even when it was first made. In any event, I believe G11 still applies even when a subject is notable, yet the entire article reads like an ad. No article is preferable to a blatant advertisement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. (I arrived at this article through a winding road which took me through Commons but my starting point was WP:COIN in a discussion about an unrelated article.) You might be right about G11 and if you are sure, you can do it. I prefer the longer process. --SVTCobra 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

1. Dead

2. Non-independent, published by the developer

3. Dead

4. Non-independent, BSP provided the mobile game intervention and technical support and edited the manuscript and from the COI Coauthor BSP is the founder and CEO of FriendsLearn, the company that produced the mobile game used in this study

5. Same as 4

6. Same as 4

7. The coverage amounts to a line in a table and pasing mentions

8. Same as 4

9. Same as 4

10. Doesn't seem to have intellectual independence

11. Trivial

12. Dead

13. Not reliable & independent

14. Coverage is based off the non-independent study noted in 4

15. See 14

16. Same as 4

17. Passing coverage

18. No coverage

19. Written by the CEO and founder of the developer

20. Possibly could count, but I cannot find the full study anywhere to validate independence

21. No intellectual independence

22. Dead

23. Dead

24. Dup of 20

25. No significant coverage

26. Not significant

27. Dead

28. Trivial/PR

29. Seems trivial

30. Dead

31. Dead

TL;DR: Only source 20 could be significant coverage, conditional on being able to view the full study for an independence check. Jumpytoo Talk 05:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pete

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

No coverage outside of industry publications. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rhesus macaque#Feral colonies in the United States. the reason this is a redirect and not a merge is per KoA's note below and related edits. If someone wants to add further material and/or should this merit a standalone article at a point in the future, the info is under the redirect. Star Mississippi 01:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feral rhesus macaque

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

Not sure if subject matter warrants a standalone article. Most of the content can be merged into Rhesus macaque#Feral colonies in the United States Mooonswimmer 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A whole section on a single loose monkey in Tampa Bay is undue weight and does not represent the concept of feral monkeys. Reywas92Talk 23:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other sections have that problem however. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Because the article is beyond stub length I think it would just become a candidate to unmerge some time in the future. But this merge effort has made me find[1] citations and add an entirely new location, Desecheo Puerto Rico. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Just a note that the merge is practically already done as of this recent edit, so it would just be a matter of a redirect at this point. The target article already has all the key details of this article, so we're dealing with a largely redundant prime for redirect article at this point.
In reality when a species has become invasive in some fashion, that is dealt with on the species page unless we get much more content than just this in order to justify a split. WP:PAGEDECIDE policy is what needs to be satisfied to maintain a separate article, and I see nothing that address that here in any depth in terms of the article sources/content or AfD comments. KoA (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of sources to establish notability, and merging all the relevant sourced information into the rhesus macaque article would give undue weight to that subject, which already has a summary in that article. Rlendog (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources only establish the notability of macaques in general (which is a given per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES anyways) not for simply being feral. A species going invasive or escaping captivity is generally well within the domain of the species page for something of this small scale. Nothing exists that would really warrant going beyond a single section in a main article either for the merge. Everything in the current article is pretty pruneable and an easy merge briefly describing the few locations and keeping some of the tabloidy stuff brief. KoA (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments aren't appropriate at AFDs. KoA (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon Controls

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage appears limited to primary sourcing or trivial articles on acquisitions, etc. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yelena Kulikova

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

Fails all criteria for WP:NTENNIS as the 25K win occurred in 2008 and NTENNIS only presumes notability for 25K wins that occurred in 2007 or before. I have searched "Елена Куликова" as well as "Elena Kulikova" and "Yelena Kulikova" but not managed to find any significant coverage. The references currently used don't offer any detail either. WP:GNG cannot be achieved through simply linking to results listings on tournament websites. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Wehking

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps at senior fully-pro level. BlameRuiner (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeRuosi Nut

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP Source are minor mentions or not independent. Lack of in-depth coverage in RS. MB 20:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Vikash Secondary School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG The Banner talk 19:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Prior result was no consensus, so a soft delete would not make sense at this stage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ishell Vaughan

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

Possible UPE, created initial with junk SEO blog references, moved to draft but than moved back into mainspace. No visible pass of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. nearlyevil665 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the article doesn't go against the politics of significance. It is as short as possible, no advertising or anything like that. There could be more references, but there are no forbidden black hats here. Just an article about a person. There are works with famous musicians and links to them. Why this article does not belong on Wikipedia I do not understand. Ilyadante (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadan[reply]

It's unwise to move draft articles on people of questionable notability out of Draft space before they get the Articles for Creation stamp of approval. They are often subject to speedy deletion but here you can argue why this article should be kept and you have some time to improve the article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just found something interesting.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Absolutely the same articles, clearly created in order to inflate a character out of nothing. If you look at the original article, it becomes ridiculous, he worked in collaboration with BMW, Lamborgini ... Very funny. If I have Calvin Klein underpants, does that mean I work with Calvin Klein?Faskat (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Faskat[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thechicagoweeklynews.com/meet-ishell-vaughan-the-filmmaker-who-turned-a-photography-hobby-into-a-six-figure-career/
  2. ^ https://www.theusareporter.com/meet-ishell-vaughan-the-filmmaker-who-turned-a-photography-hobby-into-a-six-figure-career/
  3. ^ https://www.thenewyorkfinance.com/meet-ishell-vaughan-the-filmmaker-who-turned-a-photography-hobby-into-a-six-figure-career/
  4. ^ http://www.saltlakecitydaily.com/meet-ishell-vaughan-the-filmmaker-who-turned-a-photography-hobby-into-a-six-figure-career/
  5. ^ https://www.bigbostonnews.com/from-baby-showers-to-1m-views-filmmaker-ishell-vaughans-secret-to-success/
  6. ^ https://hustleworld.net/from-baby-showers-to-1m-views-filmmaker-ishell-vaughans-secret-to-success/
  7. ^ http://www.calabasasdaily.com/from-baby-showers-to-1m-views-filmmaker-ishell-vaughans-secret-to-success/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanwar Singh Shekhawat

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

Fails notability. No significant coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olusegun Johnson

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

So, first of all, this would have passed as a G11 but I’ve decided to hold my horse. The are claims of the entity producing a ₦5 million budget movie titled Ija Ekun. The three sources produced, two are notable but does not mention Ija Ekun or the entity itself. In a nutshell, this entity does not pass the WP:GNG criteria. Reading BeansTalk to the Beans 18:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial election#Republican primary. Sandstein 19:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Doughty

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as election candidates -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while a candidate must show that either (a) he has preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia independently of a candidacy, or (b) there's a credible reason why even if he loses the election his campaign would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway.
But that's not what's on offer here: it's written very like a campaign brochure (his positions on the issues, etc.) rather than an encyclopedia article, his prior career in business is referenced entirely to primary source business directories rather than WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about his business career, and the candidacy itself is referenced to two pieces of "person announces candidacy", which isn't enough coverage to make a candidate permanently notable all by itself since it doesn't establish why his candidacy should be seen as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Having been open for about six weeks, there is a clear split of opinion between "the article can be cleaned up" and "the article should be blown up and started over". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Munaf Kapadia

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, largely WP:SELFPROMOTIONAL sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Gogoi, Angarika (2020-06-30). "He Quit Google to Sell Samosas. Today, His Fans Include Movie Stars!". The Better India. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article provides biographical background about the subject: "He pursued a BBA degree in Marketing from Narsee Monjee College of Commerce and Economics in Mumbai from 2006-2009. Soon after, he finished an MBA degree from Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies. Fresh out of college in 2011, Munaf worked with Wrigley’s as a management trainee and became one of the few area Managers in the country."

    2. Khan, Shazma (2017-07-18). "The man who quits Google to sell samosas". Business Recorder. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia, who decided to turn his mother’s recipe into a brand, is a 28-year-old Muslim residing in Mumbai, India. An MBA graduate, Munaf got a job offer from Google after working for a few years in India. ... Quitting his job at Google, Munaf started ‘The Bohri Kitchen’ in India with the idea of keeping his mother Nafisa busy. ... This is not a regular restaurant, it had gained so much popularity that the restaurant is one of the favorites among renowned Indian celebrities including Rani Mukerjee and Farah Khan."

    3. Pillai, Pooja (2018-05-06). "Families in Food: Mother's Recipe. How a son is taking his mother's delectable Bohri dishes to Mumbai homes". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "Kapadia, 29, who was then working at Google, emailed his friends asking if anyone would pay for a traditional Bohri meal at his house in Colaba. The email got circulated and soon he had his first customer who brought her friends for a meal at his place."

    4. Pratap, Rashmi (2018-03-10). "Come home to food". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "And it is planning about positioning that has helped Munaf. TBK is a brand well known through social media. It is on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and Munaf actively updates his contacts on TBK’s menu as well as future plans on various media. The increase in visibility and demand led him to open a kitchen in Worli from where he supplies Bohri food for delivery."

    5. Lazarus, Susanna Myrtle (2015-10-08). "Plating up a meaty meal". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "The Kapadias are a typical Bohri family who love their food, and with Nafisa being a great cook, Munaf had been toying with the idea of showcasing her talent and his community’s food for a few years. One morning, while he asked her his ritual question, it struck him that what sounded so normal to him might sound exotic to anyone who doesn’t know about their food. ... This was 10 months ago, and in the short period since, their popularity has soared. Bringing their food and concept outside Mumbai for the first time, TBK has collaborated with Ashvita Bistro to bring the same experience to Chennai this weekend, with lunch and dinner menus."

    6. Makhijani, Vishnu (2021-05-02). "Up close and Personal Munaf Kapadia: The Bohri Kitchen Story". The Shillong Times. Indo-Asian News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia, founder of the hugely successful The Bohri Kitchen that in five years, hosted close to 4,000 home diners on weekends and at its peak in 2019 was delivering 1,000 biryanis a day across Mumbai, writes in “How I Quit Google To Sell Samosas” (HarperCollins)."

    7. Mathai, Anjuly (2021-05-02). "Munaf Kapadia: From selling ads at Google to selling samosas at The Bohri Kitchen". The Week. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "The guy who quit Google to sell samosas has now written a book titled… yep, you guessed it: How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas. Munaf Kapadia’s story of starting The Bohri Kitchen (TBK)—a unique home-dining experience designed around the culinary traditions of the Dawoodi Bohra community—is the stuff of social media lore. That is because Kapadia, 31, a former account strategist at Google, not only has an engaging story to tell, but he is also great at selling his story."

    8. Borah, Jahnabee (2021-04-29). "Selling samosas in a pandemic: Munaf Kapadia, founder of The Bohri Kitchen, traces his entrepreneurial journey in a new book". Mint. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article provides biographical background about the subject: "Kapadia, who belongs to the Bohri Muslim community, and his mother began offering home-cooked meal experiences to guests in 2014."

    9. "Munaf Kapadia details his extraordinary journey from Google to Bohra food in new book". ThePrint. 2021-04-06. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article provides biographical background about the subject: "Kapadia completed his MBA from Mumbai’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies and worked for four years as an Account Strategist at Google India before establishing ‘The Bohri Kitchen’ in 2014."

    10. Pandya-Wagh, Kinjal (2017-10-09). "'I quit Google and launched a business with my mum'". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia runs a successful 'pop up' restaurant at his family's home in Mumbai. His mother also works as head chef."

    11. Kumar, Sanjay (2017-08-18). "Munaf Kapadia: A Google exec who became a samosa seller". Arab News. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "His parents were initially apprehensive, but they started supporting him once he and TBK started getting attention from the media and Bollywood. ... Popular names in the Mumbai film industry, such as directors Farah Khan and Ashutosh Gowarikar, started visiting his home."

    12. Shenoy, Sonali (2017-06-16). "Munaf Kapadia wants to take Bohri cuisine from Mumbai to Manhattan". Indulge (The New Indian Express). Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "What started out as a weekend project inviting people home to try his mother’s food in 2014, has fast expanded into a business model with a delivery kitchen and catering business. So much so that Munaf decided to leave his job at Google where he handled a $10 million portfolio to sell mutton kheema samosas instead."

    13. Sawant, Anagha (2020-03-07). "For this MBA graduate mom's cooking skills helped build a Rs 4 crore turnover eatery chain leaving a cushy job". The Weekend Leader. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "In one stroke Munaf Kapadia, a former Google employee, did four things. First, he exposed his mother’s culinary skills to the world. Second, he popularised his community’s Bohri cuisine in Mumbai, third, he gave foodies a go-to dining spot, and the fourth and best part - he made a lot of money out of all this."

    14. Nair, Priyanka (2017-06-08). "This MBA graduate quit his job at Google to sell mutton samosas". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "In 2015, Munaf Kapadia, an MBA graduate who was working with Google, decided to keep his mother Nafisa away from daily soaps on TV by starting a food project. The Kapadias belong to the Bohri community, who are popular for their lip-smacking thaal (a platter that consists of everything from mutton samosas, nargis kebabs, dabba gosht, kaari chawal and much more)."

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

    Cunard (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Munaf Kapadia has received international coverage in the BBC and in Arab News. He received significant coverage in major Indian publications like Business Line, The Economic Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express, and Mint. He received sustained significant coverage in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021.

    Regarding editors' comments about the article's being spam, I agree with KylieTastic (talk · contribs) at the previous AfD that "I don't see any reason to suspect COI here as the author has been around for almost four years and has created several articles India authors and their books." I reviewed the article and found it neutrally written.

    Regarding editors' comments at the previous AfD about the independence of the sources, the sources include quotes from the subject but there is also substantial commentary and reporting.

    Regarding editors' comments at the previous AfD about the article not demonstrating sufficient notability, per Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

    Cunard (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I have been pinged as one who offered an opinion in the initial discussion which closed as No Consensus. I am grateful for the ping, the more so since I disagree. I note that Kapadia is eight months or so further forward in his business, but, despite Cunard's analysis of the references, am not yet persuaded this is other than WP:TOOSOON. I am disturbed by the retention of the Forbes Fie of Fum non RS reference. I still see him as "I see a decent hardworking chap, either WP:ROTM or WP:BLP1E at present" (quoting from the prior discussion)
    I do see coverage in RS, but of insufficient quality in my view to allow me to move from ROTM to Notable. I would opt for a soft delete because the door should be left wide open for future notability without the risk of immediate speedy deletion as a re-created article deleted at AfD. Equally, either a particular and special "thing" needs to render him notable, or a period of circa 12 months should elapse to see whether a natural notability has established for him. Fails WP:BIO / WP:NAUTHOR at present FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pinged to respond, I note that the BBC and The Hindu sources are sufficient by themselves to meet GNG. All the rest of the debate about promotion (what business doesn't promote?) and non-independence of other sources are irrelevant: Major RS's including the BBC and The Hindu cover him in non-trivial detail. Arguments that he fails specific SNGs and/or is engaged in promotion are non-policy-based arguments. GNG is met, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — please I do not see adequate WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources totally independent of the subject optimized, there are a few but i am sorry they aren’t sufficient. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created it because I didn't (and don't) see how GNG isn't met. The person has been talked about in multiple, international, mainstream, reliable sources. And the coverage ranges back to 2015/2016, it's not like he appeared out of nowhere because of self-promotion in 2021. GNG is definitely met and notability has been established. Dial911 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either Nafisa Kapadia or The Bohri Kitchen The articles all begin and end with "my mother". What's covered in depth is the kitchen and the food, not the subject in the title. Sources aren't independent in my opinion, but with Hindu and BBC in there, it's futile to argue that. --Hemantha (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Delete because I was wrong to think Hindu and BBC can't be argued with. --hemantha (brief) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for what it is worth. The guy was an ex google Account strategist. All the references presented above are paid PR and nothing else. The reason the BBC picked it up, is it reached it threshold and had to reported on. It is far too soon to determine notability. The perceived notabilty of the article is being driven by a PR campaign. It seems to be something Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors are prone to. They simply can't seem to tell the difference between quality and poor references. They're is a base assumption that quantity means quality, and they're is an assumption that because the source is deemed to be RS, that somehow that makes it automatically good, which is fundamentally false. All these paper's accept advertising, in large amounts. It is their lifeblood and ensures their survival to report the real news. This isn't news. Its fake. The only exception here is the BBC, because it is government run, but even BBC when it sees a trend, must report on it. The company that Kapadia worked for, runs the most expansive and professional advertsing agency on the planet. All he would need to do, is turn around and ask a friend to advertise his book and business for him and that would be that. A mates help. Simple as that. The evidence is there, in the articles. They all look the same, they are essentially the same contents, reworded for different audiences but the same with same images. All of it was done to support the book release. It is classic PR advertising exercise, created using the advertising budget from HarperCollins. The very presence of so many stories about this person, opening a restuarant and then going to Harper Collins and saying I want to writ a book about it, is suspect. Aside from the curiosity factor of being an ex-google guy who opened a restuarant, which enough for story, there is nothing that not been done a thousand times before, in this year alone. It so common, particularly in the UK, it is well trodden path. It essentially about a man starting a busines and getting an article on Wikipedia. It is so mediocre. scope_creepTalk 11:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep the article. Wikipedia's GNG guidelines have been more than met through the use of several reliable sources - The Hindu, BBC, The Economic Times, The Times of India, The Financial Express etc. Cunard has done a meticulous job of highlighting the various publications that have carried pieces on the achievements of the subject. Most importantly, since the self-promoting nature of the Wikipedia page is under question, the earliest sources cited appear to date back to 2015. The subject has been written about in various publications, for various reasons (fundraising, entrepreneurship, mental health) across a span of at least 5 years before the book was launched in April 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunchykookie (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 20:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can sympathize with the idea that at least some of the coverage might be a well deployed publicity stunt, and I share the annoyance over Wikipedia as a repository of such publicity stunts (and an active part) by wealthy and/or arrogant people. That being said, at some point, once that stunt has reached the BBC and others, things get tricky. We created notability guidelines that are hard for pure stunts to get through, but inevitably some really, really good ones will check all the boxes on paper. That seems to be happening here. I'd certainly keep an eye on the article in the future to make sure it doesn't just become a free billboard, but as it stands, it does seem to meet the SIGCOV threshold. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All this article needs is extensive cleanup. This should perhaps be rewritten. The subject is independently subject to several reliable sources and has been discussed in much detail. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The version of the article when nominated for deletion on 29 December 2021 was short and neutrally written:

    Munaf Kapadia is an Indian author and entrepreneur. He founded The Bohri Kitchen, an experiential dining concept in Bombay with his mother Nafisa Kapadia.[1][2] Kapadia won Grilled[3] reality series,(Fox Life) in 2017 and subsequently raised a round of seed funding for The Bohri Kitchen.[4][5] He was a 2017 finalist of Forbes 30 Under 30 India list,[6]

    Book

    Kapadia's book How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas[7] published in April 2021 by Harper Collins tells the story of how he quit his job at Google India to turn a weekend food pop-up into a successful food delivery venture.[8][9][10]

    Positivepeace (talk · contribs) added a lot of information and sources to the article. Much this material is promotionally written. A lot of it adds good biographical information about the subject which is why I have not reverted their changes. I am fine if any other editor thinks the changes make the article so promotional that they should be reverted.

    G11 does not apply because Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion notes, "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." Supporting deletion of this article because promotional content was added in the middle of the AfD is a very weak reason for deletion. It would give incentive to bad actors who could make an article so promotional that editors would support deletion (I am not saying that is Positivepeace's intention here). There is a neutral version of the article to revert to if necessary.

    Cunard (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree here with Cunard (talk · contribs) as I created the article keeping in mind the tone. It changed over time and may now look promotional but that shouldn't be the reason for its deletion, and definitely not G11. I hope Randykitty (talk · contribs) said that figuratively, because if they really would have deleted it without thinking twice, well... Dial911 (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I do agree that the references seem a bit off, but I am persuaded to weakly keep this based off the sustained (there are spikes of coverage that could be PR, but there's enough coverage outside of those spikes) and international coverage of this person. There is also a bit of coverage of his restaurant from Lonely Planet. To note, I highly suspect Postivepeace is UPE/COI, and if this resolves to a keep their changes likely need much scrutiny. Jumpytoo Talk 11:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist (despite the fact that I !voted myself), because per the post on my talk page by Hemantha something went wrong during the last relist and this therefore didn't get queued for closing. Hopefully this corrects that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Harvin

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

Typical article which looks well-sourced at first, but which is rather problematic. The sources seem to be added randomly to sentences, e.g. the line about "Henry Harvin became first Educational Technology Company that provided cources on Agile and Bitcoin" is sourced to two links which don't mention this fact at all. All the sources, and most of what I can find online, are of the "5 companies which offer the best courses on subject X" type with texts clearly supplied by the company (and probably paid for inclusion in the "article" as well), not sources about the company written from a neutral or journalistic perspective. These kind of articles really are a plague and we should probably put a lot of these sources simply on the blacklist, but until then deleting them one by one is the way to go. Fram (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kounser Shafeeq

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that she's vice-chair of a District Development Council, which is not an "inherently" notable political office -- politicians at the local level do not get automatic inclusion freebies just because they exist, but must demonstrate credible reasons why they should be seen as uniquely more notable than the norm. But this just states that she exists, and is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, with absolutely no evidence shown of any coverage that is substantively about her, and just verifying that she exists is not how you get a local politician over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL is not automatically passed by every holder of every political office that exists; it requires holding office at the state or national levels, but the highest office claimed here is local. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rimpy Prince

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

Highly advertorialized article about a filmmaking duo, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim on offer here is that their work exists, and the referencing consists entirely of their work metaverifying its own existence on either their own self-published website or YouTube. As usual, however, this is not how notability is established: the inclusion test is not "the work exists", it's "the work has been externally validated as significant by third parties independent of the topic's own public relations agent, such as by winning notable awards and/or being the subject of reliable source coverage in real media". Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced properly.
Just to clarify, by the way: even though the advertorialism here is so egregious that it could theoretically be speedied G11, I don't see that as a viable approach here: the advertorialism was added entirely within the last 24 hours and the article is technically revertable back to the version that existed as of yesterday — but that version still didn't make or properly source an actual notability claim at all, so reverting the advertorialism wouldn't actually render the article keepable in the least. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 1997 ICC Trophy squads#Netherlands. North America1000 16:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Nota

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

Fails the revised WP:NCRIC inclusion guidelines as his appearances came only in the ICC Trophy. He coached the Dutch women's team in 1990 and 1991, but the tournaments he coached in were minor affairs. Can't find any wider sources to establish WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rugbyfan22, tagging you as you expressed openness to redirecting. gidonb (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fathadh mac Aonghus

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

Userfied in 2009 after the first AfD, and then moved back to mainspace without real improvements. Based on one mention in a 1843 source[2] basically, which very shortly mentions a Fathadh, son of Aengus. Lacks verifiability and notability. Fram (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Þingvallavatn air crash

[edit]
2022 Þingvallavatn air crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

General aviation accidents are rarely notable unless someone WP notable is on board. WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Just another routine light aircraft accident, one of thousands that happen globally each year. This was a Cessna 172 and probably 10,000 of the 44,000 built have crashed since they were introduced in 1955. It is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and we aren't going to have articles on all of them. No notable people (with bios on Wikipedia) were involved and there are no WP:LASTING effects, not likely to produce any changes in maintenance procedures, ATC procedures, Airworthiness Directives or anything else. - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A YouTuber (who doesn't even have an article, as do none of the other victims) among the dead doesn't automatically make this story notable. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 22:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Ahunt: @Beemer69: 1) Run of the mills accidents don't get over 100 articles about them in major national publications over a five day span. 2) Not having an article on Wikipedia has no bearing on whether a person is notable or not. Non notable persons usually don´t get their name in the headline on accident articles on CNN, Washington Post, CBS News, Fox News, NPR, The Guardian, The Independent and Sky News 3) The accident happened five days ago so WP:LASTING hardly applies. Furthermore, WP:LASTING itself states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. 4) It already passes Wikipedia:Notability (events) as it as they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources[..] as can easily been seen with the amount of coverage it is recieving. Did either of you go through the sources? Alvaldi (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did either of you go through the sources? - yes, I did, but it doesn't matter. News services jump all over plane crashes with tons of sensationalistic coverage. So what? Wikipedia doesn't. That is why we have policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING, to specifically filter out sensationalistic press stories with no lasting effects, exactly like this accident. There are around 10,000 light aircraft crashes a year globally, most years, almost all just like this one: no notable people involved and no lasting effects. We aren't going to have a breathless Wikipedia article on each one, in the same way that we don't report every car accident, bicycle or bus accident. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What @Ahunt: said. It's another small-aircraft crash, which always receive heavy media coverage but are just as quickly forgotten, and this incident will be no exception. Being "one of Iceland's most prominent aviators" is a small niche that doesn't make this particular tragedy worthy of being on Wikipedia, especially since said "prominent" aviator does not have an article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can either of you point to any non-notable small-aircraft crash that has received similar coverage as this one? And claiming that the coverage about the accident in the Icelandic media is "sensationalistic press stories" pretty much makes me believe that you didn't read them. And regarding the aviator (the one that the New York Times called "Celebrated Aviator" in the headline of its article), can you point to any official Wikipedia policy that states that a person is non-notable unless they have an article on Wikipedia? Alvaldi (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NotNews cautions that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" - ie where is the long term significance in this crash that justifies retention? As WP:Notability says "Many events portrayed by the media as major on the day they occur quickly become only a footnote". Not surprising that coverage in Iceland itself is high but where is and will be the impact further afield. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure in this case that WP:LASTING is a valid argument for deletion as this accident has only just happened. It does appear that fatal light aircraft crashes while common around the world are relatively rare events in Iceland attracting significant and broad coverage. There is also this AFD which probably doesnt warrant its own article either. Perhaps an alternative to deletion would be the creation of a sortable "List of deadliest air crashes in Iceland" or similar, retaining some key info about both accidents. If should something come out of the investigation that demonstrates a lasting impact, it could later be expanded into a separate article? Dfadden (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I think it's too early for WP:LASTING to be a valid argument, this article fails every relevant notability guideline as well as WP:NOTNEWS. - ZLEA T\C 04:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wp:aircrash.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - light aircraft crashes are rarely noteworthy and I dont see anything in the article that takes this over the bar for a mention in wikipedia never mind an article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Poop

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Typical "amusing" or "human interest" story which gets some attention for a very short while (in this case, some days in July 2019) but has no lasting notability. Fram (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox Slavs

[edit]
and Catholic Slavs


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

This article is nothing more than a loose collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to imply an inherent connection between speakers of Slavic languages who just so happen to be members of an Eastern Orthodox church, which is then extrapolated to claim a political-cultural-religious unity amongst all post-1991 sovereign states that happen to have both a Slavic-speaking majority and an Eastern Orthodox church membership majority (also through Azundar's self-made map that has no sources, replaced in 2021 by Klukajdrvec's self-made map that has no sources). Such generalisations ignore the non-Slavic and non-Orthodox populations within these states (Belarus is even claimed to have a non-Orthodox majority, yet is still included in the group), as well as Slavic-speaking Orthodox believers outside them. I've tried making improvements to the article in June 2020, and urged people to cite RS to prove the claims within the article. Some have been added since, but they fail consistently upon verification: the source never says what the article says – it usually just mentions Slavs and Eastern Orthodoxy in passing without substantiating the specific claim in question – or even says the opposite, such as the first source Hilsdale (2014) p. 329. Anything else in the article just says something about adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy in the purported set of countries, or is about the history of Eastern Orthodoxy in general or in Bulgaria in particular, selectively ignoring all the non-Slavic adherents and states of Eastern Orthodoxy, and non-Orthodox Slavs within Slavic-majority states. The article was created in May 2017 by User:Azundar, a permanently blocked sockpuppet of User:Bulgarian Archer who has also been permanently blocked in June 2017 for multiple disruptive edits on North Slavs. Most likely, they created this article as OR/SYNTH for reasons of language-based religious nationalism in order to claim the existence of a united identity and history where there is none (the Historydoctor.net reference is very misleading, it only talks about the Middle Ages, not 'today', and does not mention 'Ukrainians', 'Belarusians', 'Macedonians' or 'Montenegrins', nor 'nations' etc., but the article claims 'Eastern Orthodox Slavic nations today include the Belarusians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Russians, Serbs and Ukrainians.'), not in order to add encyclopedic verifiable knowledge to Wikipedia. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't. This is an arbitrary grouping of a linguistic and a religious group, which you may find in a passing generalisation in a book or two, but it's not a widely recognised ethnic group or political community etc.. Good that you mention Catholic Slavs! Yes, that is a very similar article in style and scope without good RS, also created by a permanently blocked sock of a permanently blocked user. Could we add that article to this nomination entry perhaps? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also nominated Catholic Slavs now, redirecting it here. If I should make it a separate page, please say so, then I will. But I think it will be more convenient to discuss both in the same place as the articles are very much alike with the same problems. You can find both 'Catholic Slavs' and 'Eastern Orthodox Slavs' in books, for example Google Books, but as mentioned, they are only passing generalisations. We could also theoretically write articles about, say, Germanic Catholics, Latin Protestants, Lutheran Celts or Hellenic Mormons by that logic, but all those articles could really say is: members of group X of churches who speak languages of the Y family. (Note, by the way, that Muslim Slavs does appear to be a legitimate concept with sufficient RS backing it). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In agreement with the nominator. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with deleting but suggest that a redirect to Eastern Orthodoxy might be an option.Gusfriend (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The Orthodox article is somewhat more substantial than the Catholic one. I expect sources could be found for some of the data, but the nations are the result of the break up of the Ottoman and Austrian and some other empires at the end of WWI, or of second Balkan War or of Yugoslavia or of USSR. It assumes that these countries are linguistically homogeneous, which is not necessarily the case. It would be more useful to tackle this (if at all) from the other side, by looking at the linguistic family of Orthodox and Catholics (etc) in Europe. Germanic Catholics would not be as ridiculous as some of the other suggestions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Antelope Valley earthquake

[edit]
2021 Antelope Valley earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No impact Dawnseeker2000 23:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. per evolving consensus that the reviews are sufficient and significant. Star Mississippi 01:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Morris (writer)

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

Non-notable author who wrote no notable books. None of the sources listed establish any notabilty for this subject. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need a few good articles about the author to show he meets notability. Publishing books is not enough, unless also he has best sellers. If you know of any articles about him and if he is best seller, please provide citations and improve the article. MartinWilder (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't actually how WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR work. Authors of notable works (which include books with RS reviews) are presumed notable. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kylotan: Just a question: given that you made no edits to either of the four articles aforementioned prior to the opening of this AfD discussion, and given that you were inactive for the past year and a half (welcome back!), how did you become aware of this deletion discussion? Pilaz (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well his only work we have an article on is an unsourced article. The notability guidelines for writers were imagined for writers whose work stands or falls on its own, where it either is the whole of the media franchise, or at least is the starting point of the media franchise. When dealing with a writer who writers tie in material with existing media franchises, I think we need to be more careful to find coverage that is actually about the writer, and not just incidental coverage of his or her products because they tie into an existing franchise. I was going to bring up how this is at times a quite complex issue. For example, I believe we do not have an article on the person who wrote the noveliszation of the 2013 film Man of Steel. We also do not have a biography on Gwenda Bond, who wrote a 3 part novel trilogy about Lois Lane (the article Lois Lane, under the novels section has quite a bit of sourced information on this series). I strongly suspect that the latter is more likely to be grounds to create an article on the writer, in large part because it is much more clearly the work of the writer alone. OK, anyone who mentions Lois Lane is of course building on a complex shared mythos, but the later is a work that only a little interacts with the existing mythos, It has Superman/Clark Kent and Perry White as characters, but their roles are very different. In the case of Superman/Clark Kent you know from the beginning you are seeing him (well some pursits would argue Superboy, he is not yet Superman I guess), but those names are not used. I do not remember if Clark Kent is ever used in the book but you know one of the characters is him, at least if you have any knowledge of any of the multitude of media that he has appeared in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prolific author. Appears to be enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Setting aside the fact that this is listed under Fictional elements (which should not be used for real world authors or works), the subject fails NBIO/NAUTHOR/GNG. He has an impressive list of titles, but they are very niche works and he himself did not attract any independent coverage, not to mention awards. He makes a living as an author but not all authors are notable. There is not even a single independent biography of him outside Wikipedia, our entry is cobbled from various primary sources like book credits, plus an occasional blog. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with Piotrus, fails NBIO/NAUTHOR/GNG due not attracting independent, reliable significant coverage. Source 1 is a blurb and not independent (publisher of author), sources 2-4 are publications from the author, source 5 is a passing mention (p.228), sources 6-14 are blogs, unreliable SPS, and not about the author, source 15 is a publication from the author, source 16 is not archived anywhere, and source 17 is from the author too. Pilaz (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found numerous reviews of Dave Morris's books. I found one source that provided significant coverage about him:
    1. Wilson, Graham A. (2020-05-01). "The use of using digital tools in developing branching narrative". Book 2.0. 10 (1): 124, 126–128. doi:10.1386/btwo_00023_1. ISSN 2042-8022. EBSCOhost 143508031. Retrieved 2022-02-06.

      The article notes on page 124:

      However, to understand the tools used by current gamebook authors and to what extent, or if indeed they used them at all, various authors were approached via gamebook groups on Facebook and asked about their writing and publishing experiences. The participating authors were Martin Noutch, Dave Morris, TroyAnthony Schermer and Dane Barrett. Dave published numerous works in the 1980s and 1990s, while the other authors have started publishing recently and are all currently engaged in writing gamebooks.

      The book notes on pages 126–127:

      Dave Morris is an established UK gamebook author, with an impressive catalogue of books to his name, authoring and co-authoring many series, including Golden Dragon ([34]), Dragon Warriors ([35]), Blood Sword ([37]) (Figure 5), Knightmare ([31]), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles ([32]), Heroquest ([33]), Virtual Reality ([36]) and Fabled Lands ([38]). He has a cult following amongst gamebook fans, having been part of the Games Workshop team from which most early gamebook authors emerged.

      Dave's work ranges from simple linear branching narratives for children, as in the Knightmare and Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles series' (both accompanying TV shows) to more complex open-world gamebooks such as Fabled Lands, co-authored with Jamie Thomson ([38]). Despite being an admittedly 'old school' author, Dave had dabbled with a variety of digital tools:

    Cunard (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep due to involvement in Dragon Warriors.Gusfriend (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard's sourcing. I admire his persistence in finding actual sourcing on a relatively niche author having a very common name. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is one source enough to satisfy WP:NBIO these days? Pilaz (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given the NAUTHOR pass, that isn't really the question, is it? Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It actually is, since nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (outside of WP:VAGUEWAVE). Pilaz (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Guardian and Kirkus offer unquestionably RS reviews of Morris's created work, satisfying NAUTHOR 3, and the originality of that app adaptation also seems to satisfy NAUTHOR 2. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh please. An app is a "significant new concept, theory, or technique"? Significant or well-known work with two reviews? One source for the subject of the article to pass WP:BASIC? Even if you were arguing for a WP:AUTHOR pass (I think you're mistakingly calling it NAUTHOR, which just redirects to BIO), WP:BIOSPECIAL demands a merge. A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here. Pilaz (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • The GNG logic - reflected for example in WP:NBOOK - is that two RS reviews make a work notable. The logic of WP:AUTHOR is that the creators of notable works are themselves presumed to be notable - the threshold for a significant or well-known work for CREATIVE isn't any higher than that for NBOOK or the GNG. Two reviews meets it. And of you can't read the reviews for content and see the innovation they attribute to the app adaptation of Frankenstein, frankly, that's your own (CIR?) issue. The logic of WP:N is apparently something you grasp only vaguely, or you wouldn't say things like against all logic when the logic has already been (somewhat painfully) clarified for you. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • One ≠ multiple. The definition for multiple is kept purposefully vague, and WP:3REFS is what I consider the bare minimum number of in-depth reviews. WP:BASIC still isn't met regardless (we're still at one short bio within an article, where Morris is an interviewee). If creating an app adaption of Frankenstein represents a "significant new concept, theory, or technique" (which of the three?), surely you'll be able to help me understand how it distinguishes itself from the scores of other recreations featured in Frankenstein in popular culture, and why the Guardian finds that Morris hasn't fully exploited the device's capabilities in order to reanimate the wild technological imaginings of the story as Shelley herself might have done. Questioning my arguments on WP:CIR grounds doesn't do your argument justice, so please remain WP:CIVIL: if you're going to make an unsubstantiated WP:VAGUEWAVE argument and are later asked to back it up with sources, it's not a personal attack against you. Pilaz (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole reason though that I brought up NBOOK is its specification (at a fairly high WP:CONLEVEL, certainly higher than your 3REFS reference) that two RS reviews establishes Notability. Not three, not five. Granted, you can quibble about whether the app adaptation is sufficiently different from a physical book for NBOOK to apply, but that would be to miss my point. My point is (1) there is no reason why a creative work would generally need more than two reviews to be Notable, and (2) if you are arguing that the app version of Frankenstein is sufficiently different from a book that NBOOK doesn't apply, that also strongly suggests that the new...technique being pioneered here has a stronger claim to significant originality than you are willing to recognize.

And if you wanted to know why I made an original assertion re: NAUTHOR rather than starting by offering reviews, you have just showed precisely why: when presented with a consistent and sourced argument that GNG is met (citing NBOOK as a clarifying example), you ignore site-wide consensus and double down on your personal preferences (such as 3REFS or your unusual reading of CREATIVE point 2). Also, as specified in NBIO, NBASIC does not need to be metal for a subject to be presumed notable (which was, in fact, the point I made and that you ignored at the top of this thread). Your idiosyncratic reading of BIOSPECIAL as a required practice simply doesn't follow either the contextual language of the guideline or WP practice, and arguing as though your own "unique" interpretation is the only one possible is, itself, UNCIVIL. And just so that we are clear, this was not a VAGUEWAVE - it was an explicit claim, which I subsequently backed up. So, nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR was simply a false statement on your part, though I assume it was a lapse and not deliberate. Your interjection, Oh please was simply rude, and A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here is UNCIVIL and even gaslight-ey when the logic has in fact be spelled out, as I had already done. So yes, you were engaged in clearly UNCIVIL behaviour, even if the apparent gaslighting was not intentional. My question about CIR may have been out of line, but the tendentiousness of your argumentation here is arguably more of a problem than simple CIR would be. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial: First, let me note that you've sidestepped the Guardian criticizing the app's deficiencies to argue that the app is a "new significant technique". Second, I think I'm starting to understand your argument better (please correct me if this is written inexactly): you believe that because a book passes NBOOK (SNG), then the author automatically passes AUTHOR (another SNG), and then that makes the author pass the GNG. Is that correct? Because not only do SNGs not work like that, SNGs are separate from the GNG. Why else would we have WP:BIOSPECIAL, for those rare cases where an author might fail WP:BASIC but pass any of the criteria of the SNG? WP:SNG also clearly indicates that the SNGs and GNGs are separate: articles which pass an SNG or [not and] the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article. When I wrote nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (outside of WP:VAGUEWAVE) (you omitted that part of the sentence), I really meant that and I stand by it. Nobody had, previous to my comment, cited the SNG AND substantiated their claim with evidence. That is the definition of WP:VAGUEWAVE: just pointing to a policy without substantiating it with evidence (after you substantiated it, it was no longer a WP:VAGUEWAVE, obviously. I'm not even sure whether this needs spelling out). The oh please is quite evidently exasperation: when I wrote An app adaptation is a significant new concept, theory, or technique?, the exasperation was due to the fact that you didn't specify which of the three it was (all three? some? one only?). And it took you only two replies to get your answer: "a technique". Was I supposed to just go my merry way, and not ask which of the three it was? I still argue that an app adaptation is not a novel technique (I'm pretty sure that word was included in the SNG for those who, for example, pioneered the technique to separate barium from radium). Adding more vagueness to an already vague guideline doesn't help the discussion go forward, so please take the time to dig to the deepest level of clarity and reduce the vagueness from your arguments, as that will make your argument not only easier to understand, but also easier to support. Finally, regarding the final sentence A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here, it was the logical continuation of Even if you were arguing for a WP:AUTHOR pass WP:BIOSPECIAL demands a merge. But interpreting BIOSPECIAL is "UNCIVIL" apparently, so that means the whole final sentence is gaslighting. Unless it isn't, because BIOSPECIAL says that if you don't meet BASIC but meet AUTHOR, a merge should be performed. Just because you have a different interpretation of BIOSPECIAL doesn't mean your interpretation is UNCIVIL either. Please do not stop assuming good faith. I apologize for the "oh please", which could have been written differently to express my incomprehension with your argument, and stand by everything else that I have written. If you still think I'm being UNCIVIL, start a discussion at AN/I. If any other editors have read this far, I'd be interested to hear third opinions. Pilaz (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure everyone will appreciate that I am not going to respond to that whole WALLOFTEXT. But you seem to misunderstand what it means for the SNGs to be separate from the GNG. As one of the authors of the current text at WP:SNG, I assure you that SNGs and GNG are generally separate paths to Notability (and for biographies, NBASIC operates as a specification of the GNG while criteria like CREATIVE operate as SNGs). The text you keep harping on at BIOSPECIAL was, as far as I know, never intended by anyone as a rule for all cases where the BIO SNGs are met but BASIC is not; you and I have discussed this before at some length, and what is UNCIVIL is for you to pretend that only your interpretation of BIOSPECIAL exists, as though you have never heard a contrary view.
Also, I continue to he annoyed at your misstatements of my basic claims here. It is not that because a book passes NBOOK (SNG), then the author automatically passes AUTHOR (another SNG), and then that makes the author pass the GNG. The only part of that which is correct is that producing a Notable work makes its creator Notable per CREATIVE. But NBOOK is not simply an SNG - it preempts the GNG in specifying what counts as reliable sourcing for book Notability (two reviews). And the end of your paraphrase is sadly mistaken - the NAUTHOR SNG is a direct claim to WP:N Notability and does not "predict" GNG (or NBASIC) sourcing, which is a separate and parallel presumption of Notability. The text of WP:SNG and of WP:NBIO is as clear on this point as it can be, I think, given the heterogenous nature of SNGs and topic areas. Newimpartial (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opened the ANI archive and, wow. I understand better why you don't want to drag me to the drama board, having barely scratched the surface of your presence in it. I wish I hadn't given you such an extended reply after you cherry-picked my text and went on a tirade about my uncivility here instead of my talk page or ANI (apparently a textual interpretation of a guideline is UNCIVIL). I wish I had known sooner that all of those accusations were made in bad faith and were simply ungrounded. Goodbye. Pilaz (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of accusations ... made in bad faith is itself a CIVIL violation. Please don't do that. And attacking me doesn't lend strength to your idiosyncratic interpretations of policy, nor is it relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20081221192656/http://www.magnumopuspress.com/?page_id=15 No His publisher No ✘ No
"Open Box". White Dwarf. No. 74. Games Workshop. p. 8. Yes Yes Assume not; the only statement sourced to this is "The following year, Morris and Oliver Johnson created the Dragon Warriors role-playing game" ? Unknown
Designers & Dragons. Mongoose Publishing Yes Yes No In the first volume, coverage is limited to stating that he had written a series called Dragon Warriors, and another called Fabled Lands. In the third volume, coverage is limited to stating that James Wallace had obtained a licence to to Morris' Dragon Warriors. The second and fourth volumes contain no coverage. ✘ No
Arcane Presents the Top 50 Roleplaying Games 1996". Arcane Yes Yes Assume not; only coverage sourced to it is about a game made by Morris, not Morris. ? Unknown
https://entropymag.org/session-report-fabled-lands-and-beginnings/ Yes Seems to accept reader submissions No Significant coverage of "Fabled Lands"; passing mentions of Morris in the context of his role in creating it. ✘ No
https://spielkritik.com/2019/01/29/playing-by-the-books-part-i-gamebooks-und-die-open-world-der-fabled-lands/ Yes Yes No Single, passing mention ✘ No
https://bit-tech.net/reviews/gaming/pc/fabled-lands-the-mmo-that-never-was/1/ ~ Significant quotations from Morris Yes No Content is entirely about Fabled Lands, not Morris ✘ No
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1299620/view/2368278345865697462 No Post by a company licenced by Morris to create a video game of the Fabled Lands No ✘ No
https://www.megara-entertainment.com/ Yes Appears to be a self-published video game news No No mention of Morris ✘ No
http://mirabilis-yearofwonders.blogspot.com/ No Published by Morris A blog No ✘ No
http://mirabilis-yearofwonders.com/ No Published by Morris No Passing mention of Morris ✘ No
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id405743224?mt=8 No "Morris founded electronic publisher Mirus Entertainment and published Mirabilis for the iPad" ✘ No
https://www.tekumel.com/eoasw.html No Written/Edited by Morris No Passing mentions of Morris as editor ✘ No
https://www.librarything.com/author/morrisdave No WP:USERGEN No List of publications ✘ No
Game Architecture and Design, by Andrew Rollings and Dave Morris No Written by Morris ✘ No
http://www.afi.com/education/dcl/roster/SearchResult.aspx?text=law+%26+order Dead link, no archive ? Unknown
"The use of using digital tools in developing branching narrative" ~ Three paragraphs of direct quotes discussing the digital tools used by Morris Yes No Many passing mentions. The sections that go beyond this are the three direct quotes, and the second of the two paragraphs quoted by Cunard, but this paragraph, simply listing the works he has created, is not WP:SIGCOV ✘ No
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dave-morris/frankenstien-interactive-novel-divided-self_b_1456960.html No Written by Morris No Blog No ✘ 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}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fascinating, but creating a table doesen't make the claims an editor makes based on their own POV any more authoritative becaus they are presented in tabular form. There is no basis in policy to set the bar of WP:SIGCOV where this editor thinks it ought to be. Newimpartial (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to dispute my assessments; which ones do you disagree with? BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ones departing most clearly from policy are your evaluations of the Designers & Dragons and "Use of using digital tools " sources. You also don't appear to have done a satisfactory BEFORE, and don't give any apparent recognition to NAUTHOR considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in "The use of using digital tools in developing branching narrative" does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG; the only independent coverage of any length is Dave Morris is an established UK gamebook author, with an impressive catalogue of books to his name, authoring and co-authoring many series, including Golden Dragon (Morris and Johnson 1984–85), Dragon Warriors (Morris and Johnson 1985–86), Blood Sword (Morris et al. 1987–88) (Figure 5), Knightmare (Morris 1988–94), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (Morris 1990–91), Heroquest (Morris 1993), Virtual Reality (Morris and Smith 1995–96) and Fabled Lands (Morris and Thomson 1995–96). He has a cult following amongst gamebook fans, having been part of the Games Workshop team from which most early gamebook authors emerged. and Dave’s work ranges from simple linear branching narratives for children, as in the Knightmare and Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles series’ (both accompanying TV shows) to more complex open-world gamebooks such as Fabled Lands, co-authored with Jamie Thomson (Morris and Thomson 1995–96). Despite being an admittedly ‘old school’ author, Dave had dabbled with a variety of digital tools:. Most of this is made up of a bibliography, and of the rest all we can say is that His work ranges from linear branching narratives to complex open-world gamebooks, and has a cult following amongst gamebook fans due to his previous work with Games Workshop. He has used a number of digital tools; if that and simple facts are all we can get out of this work, then it isn't WP:SIGCOV.
I've also reviewed "Designers and Dragons" using the links provided by Pilaz, and it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:GNG - see updated table.
And no, I didn't do a WP:BEFORE. I didn't nominate the article for deletion, and at this point I assume all sources that could meet WP:GNG have been provided. As for WP:NAUTHOR, it is unclear whether Fabled Lands is a significant or well-known work, and even if it is WP:NBIO states that People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included - and if we cannot find coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, then it should not be included. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NBIO, like the GNG itself, is a presumption of Notability (and inclusion) - the GNG is not a universal formula for Notability (or inclusion) nor is it a requirement for all articles. Perhaps you should read WP:SNG.
Also, in your table, you appear to be requiring the sources to discuss the article's subject apart from their Notable work to contribute to the Notability of the subject in terms of SIGCOV. There is no basis for this in WP policy or guidelines, however. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but it does not guarantee that a subject should be included. And sources that discuss the author in the context of their work count towards notability, such as an article that discusses how Tolkien's background contributed to the lore of the Lord of the Rings, but sources that only discuss the work do not; these sources are the latter, not the former. BilledMammal (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as bizarre (and lacking grounding in WP policy) to interpret a paragraph documenting the subject's contributions to a field as only discussing the work and not the author. Any independent RS that can be used to make relevant statements about the article's subject contribute to its Notability with respect to SIGCOV. There is simply no basis in WP policy or guidelines to require sources akin to an article that discusses how Tolkien's background contributed to the lore of the Lord of the Rings so that Notability can be established (no slight against such sources, of course, which are valuable). Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is because we cannot write an article about the creator with such sources; if we tried to write an article about Tolkien using sources that only discuss the Lord of the Rings, then we would have an article about the Lord of the Rings, and not an article about Tolkien. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to Designers and Dragons that you could incorporate into your analysis. Mentions of Morris can be found in the second edition, first and third volume. Pilaz (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, done. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal: sorry, I just realized I should have also linked the second and fourth volume for transparency's sake, although he does not appear in either. Pilaz (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, updated. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An author's notability is in his books, his have been widely reviewed, including in The Guardian. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTINHERITED; not every creator of a notable work is notable, and not every work of a notable creator is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't the way NOTINHERITED works, though: it dictates that the works of a Notable author are not necessarily notable, but it is not intended to offer an opinion on the other direction of travel. NAUTHOR (and other SNGs) are clear on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. BilledMammal (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • It isn't correct to interpret NOTINHERITED the same way in relation to NCORP as to NAUTHOR, however, regardless of any loose writing to the contrary. In fact, you seem to be citing an essay against a guideline, which isn't a good look IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then I will cite WP:N: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The topic in this case is Dave Morris, not Fabled Lands. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate to get in the way of a good two way argument about my opinion, but somehow feel as if I should respond at least once. NOTINHERITED is generally for authors of a single work (and to be honest, not always then; we have several articles about authors of a single work). In this case, though I appreciate the platypus's (echidna's? are there any others?) point, Morris has written so much that I humbly think the cumulative coverage is sufficient. Feel free carry on. --GRuban (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the arguments and policy points raised by those arguing for keep far more persuasive than those arguing for delete. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources are well past the GNG. Designers and Dragaons and the Digital Tools book are about enough, but with the rest we're in good shape. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Designers and Dragons" are about enough? Which mentions Morris three times, to tell us that he wrote a series called Dragon Warriors, that he wrote a series called Fabled Lands, and that James Wallace had obtained a licence to to Morris' Dragon Warriors? I realize that there are different definitions of significant coverage, but "Designers and Dragons" cannot reasonably be considered sufficient coverage of Morris. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't see those RS statements as relevant to Morris, or usable for this article? That dismissal doesn't sound "reasonable" to me - this source looks like a clear SIGCOV pass. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are relevant and usable, but that isn't the definition of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • A lot of nonsense gets written about WP:SIGCOV, mostly at AfD. The actual guideline definition of Significant Coverage is simply that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. That's it, and the NOR requirement is part amd parcel to the source being "relevant and usable" for the article. The source need not make a claim the article's subject is significant, nor need it be of any particular length or (analytical) depth - as some editors constantly insist at AfD for no policy-compliant reason. Newimpartial (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Telling us that he authored two works, and that a James Wallace obtained a licence to one of those works, is "in detail"? BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is more information in each source than you have just laid out (starting with what the works in question in fact are). In fact, the difference between your paraphrase and the actual RS just might represent the difference between something that is not "in detail" (your paraphrase, which says nothing usable) and something that is "in detail" (the actual sources, which say something usable). Again, "in detail" here essentially means "in sufficient detail to use in the article without OR". Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Conventionally, in practice, an author typically survives per WP:NAUTHOR if they have at least two items that pass WP:NBOOK. The reviews accomplish that here. In addition to the reviews, Morris’s Frankenstein app probably passes the NBOOK criteria for being the subject of instruction at multiple schools, as I have personally taught it in an undergrad English class. NAUTHOR, like WP:NPROF, is a little unusual as an SNG because it does explicitly allow persons to derive notability from coverage of their works even if the sourcing only discusses those works rather than discussing the person directly. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as they have written multiple noteworthy books.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ebix

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

Highly promotional article that's mostly about Robin Raina and not about the company. Sources cited are highly suspect, e.g. "Robin Raina Net Worth (2022)". "Raina is known to lead the firm efficiently during the 2008 global financial crash". And so forth. WP:LISTED does not compel us to keep this just because it's publicly traded, and the sources cited are all routine business coverage or not WP:RS at all, leaving little to be said about Ebix. FalconK (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; not promotional at all: This Hindustan Times article clearly says that it's "a leader in insurance and payment processing software and exchanges". And according to this Business Today article, it is the "only company in Atlanta that has a road named after it: 1 Ebix Way". Moreover, this company has enough media coverage that your bid to challenge its notability makes your stance completely baseless. If you think this article is written like an advertisement you can certainly use different a tag instead of AfD. Now let others decide. Derivator2017 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking into this, and note that the Hindustan Times piece linked above is a by-line-less reprint of an Asian News International piece, with the latter source's reliability being highly contested last time it was discussed; I would not consider it to be an indicator of notability in this context. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. This is a company on the NASDAQ with a current market cap of over $900 million USD. Suggest tagging with appropriate improvement tags. Ebix Smartclass has also been marked for deletion so perhaps merging it to this page would be a start.Gusfriend (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As above - needs work, but no need for WP:TNT. FalconK if you could tag the areas you have a problem with, I'm happy to work on them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some of the irrelevant stuff but my main problem with it is that there's so little to say about the company other than that it's a business, has a bunch of money, and exists. I'm having some trouble with WP:CORPDEPTH on this one. FalconK (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the evidence for notability? FalconK (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To examine the newly added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Manufacturing LLC

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

Despite my due diligence, this business fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. Missvain (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Clear sense that this fails GNG and the Music argument hasn’t moved later voters. Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mylene Sheath

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

[40] seems to be a passing mention. I found [41] which also seems to be a passing mention. Sikonmina (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one reliable source to the article. One more would prove notability. Sikonmina (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are the steps you should be doing before nominating an article for deletion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are steps people should be doing before they create an article. Sikonmina (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to WP:AGF; my intention isn't to violate policy. You, however, are casting aspersions and that isn't WP:CIVIL. Sikonmina (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see the editor has turned a new leaf. Chubbles (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold 3rd relist, as the last AFD also resulted in a no consensus close. Are there enough sources to pass WP:BASIC?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC suggests that "one of the more notable indies" can be judged by the importance of its roster and its length of operation, which is a more concrete guideline than NCORP (and, being closer to the expertise area, is more suitable). There's also some utility in being able to tie these artists together - they share an important attribute, of being on the same label, and without the label article acting basically as a list fulcrum, the artists would have to be linked together each on each page, which is awkward from an information-organization standpoint. Chubbles (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles Which takes me back to, well, what I said. This is useful but NMUSIC is just a supplement to GNG and in theory, GNG has precedence - NMUSIC just says "this kind of entity is likely to meet GNG so please do a throughout BEFORE"... And said BEFORE is not yielding sources showing WP:SIGCOV coverage, is it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So there are lots of articles (I can find dozens) of the format "x band signs to Mylene Sheath", which is typically taken here to be SIGCOV of the band rather than the label, and I'm not really sure that's the right way to think about them. There aren't many in-depth, longform profiles of the label, but I've always argued that is not a reasonable expectation for this sort of notability question. As I noted, there are some practical utilities that are afforded by label articles when thought of basically as list articles; another way we could handle the info-org problem would be convert it to a category, but I'm sure someone would eventually bring that to CfD if there's no article to support the category. Ultimately, I guess the way I look at it is, this is a label that released some genuinely important music, and that is of encyclopedic interest; if our guidelines are preventing us from giving a robust account...well, that's what WP:IAR is for, no? Chubbles (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand your argument: does WP:MUSIC have any guidance on notability? Sikonmina (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chubbles, "There aren't many in-depth, longform profiles of the label". Wait, so there are some? Links? Also, SIGCOV aside, do we have any assessments? Did anyone say that this label is important or such? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Neither side prevails whether assessing on numbers or on strength/quality of argument. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Tié

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

Player still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Made no appearances during the 2020 Olympics, has not made his debut for Vitoria and has no significant coverage. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was under the assumption that he would actually play at the Olympics, which he did not. If we are setting the benchmark for notability at "being involved in an international squad", then there are a lot of AfDs that need to be reviewed and articles that need reinstating. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Okay, if the community agrees that this article genuinely passes GNG, then fine. I just personally thought the benchmark was much higher for GNG than this. The source provided by Spiderone was already in the article, so I have seen it already, but it is the only real article specifically about Tié. All the rest are either mentions or transfer speculation/gossip/announcements. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I stand by my earlier comment that the !keep voters were mostly voting with the impression that he would pass WP:NOLYMPICS, with comments being "seems very close to passing GNG, and at any rate should not be deleted until after the Olympics at the soonest", "and further the Olympics starts July 23rd that is Just 6 days from now" and "and going to the Olympics". I am aware some of these voters said he met GNG, but the reason I've started this debate is because I do not believe that one independent source is enough for sigcov. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.premierleague.com/news/844127 No Yes No One line in a list of "U21 players (Contract and Scholars)" ✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/nicolas-tie/496583// Yes No Statistical information only ✘ No
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/teams/academy/nicolas-tie No Chelsea is not independent from its academy players Yes ~ ✘ No
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/chelsea-goalkeeper-tie-signs-contract-until-2021/1go6j9w0mh4ik1fbjz12upfwv4 Yes Yes No Minimal coverage, with no information beyond basic facts ✘ No
https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2020/8/1/21350583/official-vitoria-de-guimaraes-sign-chelsea-u18-goalkeeper-nicolas-tie No Chelsea fansite ✘ No
https://www.ojogo.pt/futebol/1a-liga/vitoria-guimaraes/noticias/mais-um-jogador-em-vias-de-deixar-o-v-guimaraes-tie-a-treinar-no-st-gallen-14486157.html Yes Yes No Minimal coverage, with no information beyond basic facts ✘ No
https://www.guimaraesdigital.com/index.php/informacao/desporto/70987-nicolas-tie-devera-deixar-vitoria-para-reforcar-st-gallen Yes Yes No Minimal coverage, with no information beyond basic facts ✘ No
https://www.tagblatt.ch/sport/fcstgallen/fcsg-ghana-verliert-erstes-spiel-am-afrika-cup-zigi-koennte-zum-rueckrundenauftakt-dem-fc-stgallen-zur-verfuegung-stehen-ld.2237205 Yes Yes No Single brief paragraph of coverage in a larger article that provides no useful information - does not even support the line it is claimed to support ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45757886 Yes Yes No Passing mention; "Chelsea academy goalkeeper Nicolas Tie has been forced to withdraw from Ivory Coast's squad for their 2019 Africa Cup of Nations qualifiers against Central African Republic (CAR)", in addition to two sentences of quotes which are not independent. ✘ No
https://www.guimaraesdigital.com/index.php/informacao/desporto/67125-vitorianos-nicolas-tie-e-o-lateral-direito-zie-ouattara-convocados-pela-costa-do-marfim-para-os-jogos-olimpicos Yes Yes No Only information provided is that Tie has been called up for the Ivory Coast Olympic team; does not constitute significant coverage ✘ No
https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/poitiers/football-le-gardien-de-but-poitevin-nicolas-tie-aux-jeux-olympiques-avec-la-cote-d-ivoire Yes Yes No Three sentences of independent coverage stating that he will travel to Japan on the 17th of July, as one of three Ivory Coast goalkeepers for the Olympics; the rest is a very basic interview ✘ No
https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/tokyo-olympics-mens-soccer-preview-group-d-brazil-germany-cote-divoire-saudi-arabia Yes Yes No Passing mention in a list of Ivory Coast players ✘ No
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12356355/football-at-olympics-tokyo-2020-which-premier-league-stars-are-heading-to-the-games Yes Yes No Passing mention in a list of Ivory Coast players ✘ 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}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Good enough sourcing and coverage is just enough to meet GNG. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has been refbombed with routine transaction coverage, but still does not have a single piece of SIGCOV. Definitely does not meet GNG. I had actually completed my own source assess table before seeing BilledMammal had already made one; since mine was almost identical to theirs I can say I agree fully with their assessment. JoelleJay (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's hardly ref-bombing. Also the sum total of some of the references provided meet WP:SIGCOV which notes that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but does not need to be the main topic of the article. You imply that what many see as significant coverage, you see at WP:ROUTINE, but a reading of ROUTINE makes it clear that sports scores are routine. Sure, there's routine coverage of the transfer of notable players (as in articles, rather than just a line in a table) - but that's no surprise. Also of no surprise, is that there's other coverage not referenced in the article (wouldn't want to REFBOMB it), such as this that post-dates the last (snow keep) AFD. Nfitz (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That source is already in the assessment table. If the sum total of transaction coverage was accepted as equivalent to SIGCOV, every football player deleted in all the previous AfDs would have been kept. The ONLY coverage of Tié is transactional; there is no assessment of his skills, no detailed analysis of his performance over time. Guimaraes Digital reports on local youth chess tournaments, their spending 5 sentences on Tié transferring to St Gallen is hardly indicative of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why must you argue about absolutely everything, on every discussion you are involved in, always needing to get the last word? You act like there are rules, and everything is black and white, rather than shades of grey. Even in the real world, laws can only be ruled on, considering precedent. Why ignore precedents that already exist? This isn't the forum for that. Nfitz (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is BilledMammal’s source assessment table accurate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the "Significant coverage?" column in the table is subjective despite being presented as some kind of definitive indisputable assessment, and my own judgement would be that at least one of the sources (La Nouvelle République) does satisfy SIGCOV and therefore a GNG pass. Crowsus (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that multiple sources are required for WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hertz Nazaire

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

does not meet criteria for visual artists -- no works in museums, no substantial coverage DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd relist in the hopes of generating more discussion. Are there enough sources available to pass WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012

[edit]
Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Armenia did not compete in Eurovision 2012, we do not have an article for Armenia in Eurovision 2021 where they also didn't compete, it should probably be redirected. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There is clearly no agreement on whether or not the sources found by Cunard show that a detailed article can be written on this subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SudShare

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

Although this was recently closed as Keep (non-admin closure) it occurred over a holiday period and although I was more than half-way through the references I was not in a position to comment. I opened a discussion on the Talk page with the original author (COI declared, all above board) and I can immediately see their grasp on our NCORP guidelines is flawed, as were those of the editor that moved from draft only to then nominate for deletion (that is *not* the way to do things, if you're not sure then don't move from drafts to mainspace). There is extensive analysis of sources on the articles Talk space and I can duplicate it here if necessary. None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability there topic fails HighKing++ 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had hoped to be able to respond to @HighKing's comments on the SudShare talk page before they re-nominated it for deletion, but I've been dealing with a rather intense flare-up of some chronic health issues this past week or so, and didn't have the ability to respond until now. I apologize for that delay, and for not informing anyone I was dealing with that, leading to a fragmented discussion. I'm going to try to respond to the issues brought up in detail below, but it may take me a while due to lack of energy, and I beg the nominator's/closer's patience if I haven't responded within the normal time limit. Obviously I can't ask you to delay closing if too much time passes, and hopefully this won't even be an issue and I'll be able to respond in full today, but just in case, I feel I owe it to the community to explain my delayed response. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with acknowledgment that I have a conflict of interest as a former employee of SudShare). [I should not have made it seem like I was submitting a vote here, that was inappropriate of me and I deeply apologize. I stand by the rest of my comment, but it should merely be read as an argument for why editors without a COI might want to vote "keep," not a vote in-and-of-itself.] [see page history/Timtrent's comments below for context on the mess above; this apparently should count as a vote] Okay, so there's a lot to discuss here, so I'm going to break my reply up into smaller segments for reading/editing comprehension. I will also be relying on the assumption that editors reading this have already read the discussion on the SudShare talk page, and will continue where that left off. Please let me know if you have any issues with my formatting, or if you need a quick recap of the preceding discussion.
The first issue that I'd like to bring up here is that of the concept of "puff pieces," their definition, and how they relate to WP:NCORP. The reason I'm bringing this up is because HighKing (who, it should be noted, I think is a pretty awesome editor in general, although I'm arguing against a large swath of his past AfD comments) uses the concept extensively to dismiss a large number of sources (for failing NCORP specifically) on both the SudShare page as well as many other pages nominated for AfD in the past. This, I believe, is due to a (good faith) mistaken impression both of what a "puff piece" actually is, and how that effects notability concerns. For reference, here is HighKing's definition of a "puff piece," as taken from the SudShare talk page discussion.

"First this has nothing to do with the reputation of a journalist, it has to do with the content. In general, "puff pieces" have a particular format which usually goes includes all or most of the following "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". That article fits the bill therefore its a puff piece. And there's nothing to say that a reputable journalist doesn't do puff pieces."

This definition is commendable for its clarity, but differs significantly from the commonly accepted meaning of the term. How do I know this? Well, let's take a look at this excellent article from the Wall Street Journal on the history and definition of the term:

In the classic journalism textbook “News Reporting and Writing,” Melvin Mencher defines “puff piece” or “puffery” as a “publicity story or a story that contains unwarranted superlatives.”....a 1732 article in London Magazine explains that “puff” is a “cant word” (or bit of jargon) “for the applause that writers or booksellers give their own books &c. to promote their sale.”....In legal usage, “puffery” took on the meaning of overblown advertising based on subjective claims.....“Puff piece” has continued to grow as a derisive jab against fawning media accounts—as has its antonym “hatchet job,” for an unfair attack on someone or something.....to someone predisposed to dislike the subject matter, even the most dispassionate report might look like a puff piece.

Note that there is no mention in this article, or in any article I could find with a quick google search, that defines a "puff piece" as a piece of media with any specific format, as described by HighKing. Rather, the generally accepted definition seems to be a piece of media loaded with "unwarranted superlatives," very similar to Wikipedia's own definition of MOS:PUFFERY (also see WP:PUFF, and WP:BUZZ): "positively loaded language" designed to promote the subject of an article. This does not mean that any and every article which only talks about positive aspects of a person, corporation, or entity is a puff piece, but rather that puff pieces are specifically loaded with unwarranted superlatives.
Secondly, let's assume that an article is indeed a "puff piece" as described by HighKing. Does that make any difference in assessing notability for WP:NCORP or WP:BIO? I would argue that the answer is clearly no. Looking at WP:PUFF, WP:BUZZ, and MOS:PUFFERY, it is notable that all of these pages are about writing style within Wikipedia, not that of outside sources. It's a matter of common sense (and I'm sure there's an explicit policy about it somewhere) that sources do not have to follow WP:MOS to be establish notability or reliability. Rather, the core question is if the source can be trusted to be truthful (even if it does not contain a complete history of the subject), and if discussion of the subject can be considered "significant" (if one wishes to use the source to establish notability). The "feel" of the article, quite simply, does not and should not play a role here. The one exception to the above rule of thumb, per WP:NEWSORG, is that if the article is clearly an opinion piece, or if the publisher has a reputation for inaccuracy, then it should not be used in most contexts. If an article contains excessive "unwarranted superlatives," than of course we shouldn't use it to establish WP:NCORP, but if it merely follows the format that HighKing describes, that should not influence our judgement when considering NCORP decisions at AfD.
One objection that I can imagine being made at this point is that I'm failing to consider WP:ORGIND. This is not so. To paraphrase from ORGIND:

There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources: Independence of the author (the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product), and independence of the content (the content must not be produced by interested parties)

If an independent journalist with a reputation for fact checking and honesty writes an article which is generally favorable towards a company (but does not cross over into an opinion piece), that does not violate ORGIND, although you may personally wish the journalist had dug up some dirt on the company during her coverage or something. To assume that any positive coverage must be the work of company insiders, even when dealing with, for example, a front-page article on a 16-times Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper just doesn't seem right to me. Yes, we must do our due diligence to insure that corporations aren't "gaming the system," but this reading of NCORP seems to be going way too far, which is why I have chosen to start off by talking about this.
I will continue my discussion (and subsequent points/responses) in a reply to this below, when I have the energy to continue writing.
Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response It is notable that you've taken a nit-picking approach to my use of the term "puff piece" - fine, call it a "puff profile" then so that there's no overlap with the other term.
Most of your argument is designed to avoid the actual test we use to determine whether ORGIND or CORPDEPTH has been met. (Hint: We read the actual words in the actual article.) Your entire argument above can be summed up as a modification to ORGIND along the lines of Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject *except* if its an independent journalist with a reputation for fact checking and honesty. It is fairly easy to predict where we'd end up if we went down this particular road. Please see WP:LAWYER.
In our discussions to date, I've asked you to point to specific content within any of those articles which meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND and I'm still waiting. HighKing++ 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[writing out a detailed response, will post once complete (hopefully this afternoon). Putting this placeholder here to indicate I'm not ignoring this, just writing slowly] Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response HighKing I apologize for the "nitpicky" style of my my argument so far. You're also totally correct that I haven't yet addressed the specific content within the articles here in favor of a more abstract approach. I can understand your concern that I'm leaning dangerously close to Wikilawyering, and I'll try to be better about that in the future (though some of this is just my personal long-winded style, and for that I can't honestly promise I'll be better, since I'm quite terrible at condensing my thoughts).
First however, just to answer your objection, I'm afraid that there might have been a misunderstanding. The core of my above argument was simply that your criteria for determining that something is a "puff piece," "puff profile," or whatever you wish to call it, is a disqualifying criteria that seems to be of your own invention, rather than originating in something within CORPDEPTH, ORGIND, other Wikipedia guidelines, or historical definitions (though you're right that the latter was irrelevant, and I apologize for getting carried away). That is to say, my understanding is that the "test we use to determine whether ORGIND or CORPDEPTH has been met" is to check if the content can be clearly attributable to an independent party, regardless of if that third party is writing in a format you've identified that you don't personally like or not. I did not mean to imply that we should simply trust journalists with solid reputations, though looking back, I see how my words could have easily been read that way. One place where journalistic reputation does genuinely come into play is when we're dealing with a known bad actor (such as fake news sites, tabloids, and some trade journals), which I brought up with the intention of saying that that isn't what we are dealing with here. Additionally, as per WP:CORPDEPTH, (under the "Numerical facts" subheading), "the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent." This clearly seems to indicate that we can indeed be more trusting of the independence of a reputable source, though that should in no way stop us from doing due diligence. Sincere apologies for the confusion, and I hope this helps you understand my position more clearly.
Okay, now on to specifics! I'll be going in the order of the articles you brought up in your last comment on the SudShare talk page, rather than in order of what I personally find to be the "strongest" sources, so I will be bringing up some genuinely borderline cases here, which I expect we might reasonably disagree on. I've also skipped a number of references brought up that you've either successfully convinced me aren't valid for NCORP (if you want I'd be happy to list them), or which we've already discussed to the point that I don't think further clarification on my part will help (happy to list those as well, of course, if you feel that would be useful).
  • With regards to the ESPN Sioux Falls reference, as discussed before, it does use a previously-written Sioux Falls article as its jumping-off point, but, I would argue, adds significant enough "original and independent opinion" and analysis to be considered independent for the purposes on NCORP. (For reference, the relevant quote in full is "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." Note the use of the words " must include" rather than "must consist solely of"—I think there was some confusion about that in your initial comment on the talk page). The relevant independent opinion and analysis in the article is as follows (apologies in advance for the length, but as you asked for direct quotes...):

    "Doing laundry is one of those universal chores that fall under the heading of nuisance. You know you need to do it for health and social reasons. After all, family members and friends prefer to spend time around loved ones who don't smell like 10-year-old sneakers. Plus, it's just not good form to wear the same t-shirt for two weeks, or turn your underwear inside out and wear it again! But you're busy, very busy! So busy that your hamper is overflowing. Or for some people, your bedroom floor is covered with so many dirty clothes, it looks and smells like a garbage dump. Or you're lazy, very lazy! Your trunk or truck bed has bags and bags of so many clothes, you no longer remember what might be in them. You only know for sure that your favorite pair of jeans has been missing for a month. Busy or lazy, it doesn't matter anymore....[At this point, information from the prior article is basically repeated]....Obviously, there are a lot of people out there who simply hate doing laundry, because SudShare is now available in 400 cities, with more being added all the time. If you decide to hire a “Sudster” the typical customer can expect to pay $35 to $40 per service. That is of course unless you had to rent a Pod, which is currently sitting on your driveway full of your dirty laundry!"

    This clearly includes significant Independent content, as defined above, primarily though rather colorful opinion/analysis. As someone (with a declared conflict of interest) who was an employee of SudShare at the time this article came out, I can assure you that no executive there would have signed off on an article straight up calling customers lazy. If that isn't independent of the company, I don't know what is!
    • With regards to the Sioux Falls article the ESPN article is based on, I think it might be (weakly) arguable that the use of cross-referencing the company's statements (such as the amount of money they claim can be made by contractors) with those of independent contractors counts as "fact checking". Probably not worth investigating further in this context, but I can imagine situations in which that sort of consideration could be relevant.
  • You've previously dismissed The Root article as being about the product, rather than the company, and asked me to specify where the company as a whole is discussed. Here are some relevant passages from the article, with some sections that are clearly about the company rather than the product in bold:

    I haven’t been to a laundromat in eons and frankly, all of the ones close to me are probably drug fronts. Luckily, this new gig-economy has created a service that does all of the heavy lifting for you: SudShare. SudShare—and no this is not an ad—is an app that lets you outsource your laundry. You put all your clothes in bags and then a person comes to pick the stuff up and then they wash, dry, fold and then return your clothes back to you by the 8 p.m. the next day at $1 a pound.....While I feel a way about some random stranger both washing my clothes and HAVING THEM for so long—real talk, they could just decide not to deliver my clothes to me, kind of like that time I watched my UberEats driver drive RIGHT past my house doing like 65 mph with my order of Popeyes only to never be seen on the app again—I welcomed the opportunity to not have to fold everything.....So imagine my surprise when I’m getting clothes back folded, impressively so and more efficient and neatly than I do. I wasn’t prepared. I tipped one SudShare person $20 JUST because I was impressed with her folding. The way she folded my shirts gave me a new way to fold to maximize more space in my drawers....I was looking forward to having my clothes delivered so I could see what new and innovative ways folks are folding their clothes. I really didn’t know I cared this much about folded clothes until I had no choice but to have others wash my clothes. I’ve got new techniques and all.....Now thats not to say that the entire experience has been sweet. For instance, I’ve learned that many, many of you have no business washing OR folding folks clothes.....I have been testing certain clothes out, on purpose so I can build up a roster of folks who I’m fine with doing the wash; in SudShare you can request folks who have washed your clothes before.....I got one bag back of clothes and the socks weren’t even folded together. WHO DOES THAT? No (good) tip for you. Not to mention this same person didn’t even try to fold the shirts in a way that didn’t cause wrinkle-age....this SudSharer is basically the Alamo now—I’ll never forget. But I will say that I have mostly learned new and innovative ways to fold my clothes....With that said....this life starts to add up and ultimately nobody will care about my clothes the way that I do. But there are a few SudSharers who I now trust. They got good tips. And now my folded laundry looks different which is basically like having new clothes so it’s all win over here.

    The WP:SNOWFLAKE aspect of SudShare is its business model of using independent contractors who wash at home, rather than at laundromats. That's not the product, that's the core of what makes the business notable. Yes, obviously a review talking about sudsters, the anxiety of giving away your laundry for someone else to do, and the way the company allows connections to form with the workers involves the product (cleaned clothes), but in this case that clearly isn't the focus for much of the article. It's a discussion about the concept of trust and ownership, how SudShare works as a unique business model, and the quality (or lack thereof) of its workers/contractors, not solely (or even primarily) a pure product review.
  • I had written a whole thing on the Baltimore Sun article, but saw that Cunard had already provided an excellent explanation with quotes about the notability and independence of the article below, so unless you have further issues or questions not answered there, I don't feel like it's necessary for me to further clutter up this page with what's already been stated.
  • From the FreightWaves article, lines like "As COVID demonstrated, people will pay a premium for convenience, and that holds true for laundry, as evidenced by the exponential growth of a company like SudShare" could be considered independent analysis, although the bulk of the article is definitely not.
  • You asked which portions of the other Sioux Falls article were independent. Here are a few quotes that to me at least, pretty clearly indicate independent analysis/opinion on how SudShare has impacted the workforce:

    “Before this, I was doing factory work,” she said. “I did both for a while. And now I’m just doing (gig work) full time.” If you are in manufacturing, or logistics, or food processing, think about that. Stoopes could have been one of your employees. And, unlike what some continue to insist to me, it’s not that she’s sitting at home relying on government assistance. It’s not that she just decided to drop out of the workforce. It’s that instead of working on a production line, she’s in her car delivering other people’s groceries or in her laundry room washing and drying their clothes. And she loves it

    ....I see it in my own business constantly. My ability to attract and retain talent is highly influenced by my willingness to offer them as much control over their time as possible. That’s not always easy in a deadline-driven job. I fully recognize that working for us comes second to whatever is going on in their lives and that they will prioritize their time accordingly, and as a leader it’s ultimately on me to make it all work. That’s clearly more doable in some industries than others, which explains why some are suffering so acutely for workers, I think. You generally can’t let front-line health or safety workers create their own hours or work environment. Someone has to be in the kitchen cooking when the customer is there to eat. You can’t assemble a complex product or process a hog from home. But we as leaders also can benefit by thinking more like that teenager in Baltimore. And by remembering that just because we don’t necessarily see them, workers like Stoopes are creating their own version of work.....It’s possible to build culture and loyalty even in a more fragmented workplace. But, again, it takes a more modern approach. Fittingly, right after I spoke with my first Sudster, I stopped by Talent Draft Day, an event hosted this year by the University of Sioux Falls....USF president Brett Bradfield was one of many who heard me retell the story of the Sudster I’d just met earlier that day. It didn’t surprise him, either. “I’ve had some people ask me when I think things are going to get back to normal,” he told me. Neither one of us said anything for a moment, probably thinking the same thing. Forget normal. Change and disruption are the new normal. And if you’re struggling to hire, don’t forget about people like the Sudster.

    I think this speaks for itself as an excellent independent opinion piece that uses an interview as a jumping-off point, but which ultimately meets NCORP with a unique reading of SudShare's employees and business practices through the lens of the changing workforce.
I hope all of this helps you understand why I believe in the notability of the SudShare article.
Yours, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say "what matters for NCORP is if the information in an article is produced/fact checked by independent parties or not" which is largely correct, but you've omitted the bit that says the fact-checking must be "clearly attributable". You're trying to introduce an assumption that a journalist's integrity shouldn't be questioned and we should base a decision on the "quality" of the journalist. Nothing in the guidelines even comes close to this assumption and for good reason. HighKing++ 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to quickly note that a number of articles seem to have come out since the wiki page was last edited. Some are probably relevant to the discussion, though others are probably not. New articles include:
Hope this is helpful :) Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Mishpacha Magazine reference is a puff profile (my new phrase!) that follows the same dull format as all the others - "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". This one even publishes a photo from the "Family archives". I mean, c'mon, are you even trying?
The Baltimore Magazine article is also a "puff profile". Not sure what "some original reporting" is meant to mean relative to our guidelines. If you mean ORGIND then you're gonna need to highlight which bit meets ORGIND because the article is *entirely* based on information provided by the company. HighKing++ 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing This isn't me "trying" or not, just posting some potentially relevant updates on the situation. In retrospect mentioning my personal opinion was a mistake here, since that wasn't my primary goal, and I didn't want to be adversarial (though I realize I've clearly come across that way). I'll try to address the details with quotes in the reply to our conversation above I'm working on, as per your request. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could help me with an aspect of your position I'm confused about—would you mind linking some Wikipedia articles about companies which haven't been the subject of controversy that you believe meet NCORP guidelines? I'm having a really hard time even imagining what an article of that sort would look like for you, which means I'm probably misunderstanding something about your position. Thanks, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yitzilitt (paid), I'll take it to your Talk page rather than cluttering this one up and for us to avoid WP:BLUD allegations. HighKing++ 17:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Some of the articles include quotes from people affiliated with the company, but there is enough independent coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources and there is enough depth of coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage.
    1. Mirabella, Lorraine (2021-11-15). "Pikesville father and son roll out national 'Uber for laundry' concept". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

      The article is an in-depth profile of the company. It includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but it also includes independent research and reporting. The article notes: "SudShare, which the teen launched four years ago with his father, an entrepreneur, now has customers in 400 cities who pay other people to wash their clothes. The service employs an army of gig-economy contractors, paid by the pound, to wash those clothes in their home laundry rooms. ... Like Uber, SudShare works through a scheduling app and on-demand pickup — of laundry, that is. For $1 per pound and a $20 minimum, customers can leave bags of clothes at their doors to be picked up, washed, dried, folded and delivered the next day."

      The article quotes from an independent expert:

      “I definitely think it’s a good idea,” said Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. “I think it can work for the right consumer. There are going to be some consumers who aren’t going to like that idea of people touching your clothes.”

      But she can see it appealing to others, such as busy professionals who rely on shared laundry facilities or laundromats. A key, she believes, will be finding ways to retain enough reliable contractors to meet demand.

    2. Hebron, Grace (January 2022). "Baltimore-Born App Allows Locals to Outsource Their Laundry: Somewhere between a rideshare service and a laundromat, SudShare has evolved to service 400 cities". Baltimore. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

      The article notes: "Since its local takeoff roughly three years ago, SudShare has evolved to service 400 cities, now with more than 55,000 Sudsters spread across the U.S. And though much has changed since 2018—the Fertel brothers moved to Minneapolis, MN, where SudShare is now headquartered—“Baltimore remains one of our biggest cities,” says Fertel."

    3. Jackson, Panama (2021-05-27). "My Washer Broke and I've Had to Outsource My Favorite Chore—Washing Clothes. I've Learned a Few Things". The Root. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

      The author reviews her experiences with SudShare. I consider a review of the author's experiences and learnings with using SudShare to be significant coverage about SudShare. The article notes: "Luckily, this new gig-economy has created a service that does all of the heavy lifting for you: SudShare. SudShare—and no this is not an ad—is an app that lets you outsource your laundry. You put all your clothes in bags and then a person comes to pick the stuff up and then they wash, dry, fold and then return your clothes back to you by the 8 p.m. the next day at $1 a pound."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SudShare to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response Almost none of the above argument by Cunard meets our NCORP guidelines. For example, a "review of the author's experiences" with the product/service is not applicable for establishing the notability of the company - if the topic was about the product/service then it might. Cunard's understanding of "Independent Coverage" ignores the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Cunard says an article "includes independent research" but then quotes a generic paragraph that has appeared in several of the other advertorials. Cunard also appears to misunderstand the requirement for such "Independent Content" to also assist with CORPDEPTH, the quotation from the marketing exec - that its a "good idea" - falls well short. HighKing++ 13:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not agree with the analysis that a "review of the author's experiences" is insufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. It would not be beneficial to the reader to have the article only be about the company's product/service of providing laundry services through independent contractors. But if refocusing the article would change your viewpoint to support retention, then that is an option.

        Regarding "the quotation from the marketing exec", the quotation was not from a marketing executive. It was from a marketing university professor. The full quote is "“I definitely think it’s a good idea,” said Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. “I think it can work for the right consumer. There are going to be some consumers who aren’t going to like that idea of people touching your clothes.” But she can see it appealing to others, such as busy professionals who rely on shared laundry facilities or laundromats. A key, she believes, will be finding ways to retain enough reliable contractors to meet demand." This is independent and detailed analysis from an expert at a university.

        Cunard (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        • Response You're conflating the two different uses we make of references. The most common is to support facts within the article. The other is to establish notability. A "review of the author's experiences" with the *product* does not establish notability of the *company* - but like you say, it can still be used to support "fleshing out" the article and support facts, etc. When we say the reference fails NCORP, we're only ruling it out from assistingg in establishing notability, we're not banning its use. On the quote from the marketing professor, where's the "in-depth information" about the *company*? It's a throwaway opinion of little content, does not assist in establishing notability because there's isn't enough from her. HighKing++ 22:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SudShare participants: Nomadicghumakkad (talk · contribs), Caleb Stanford (talk · contribs), Yitzilitt (paid) (talk · contribs), and Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom. and in complete agreement with the reasons provided by Timtrent, and Falcon Kirtaran. - Hatchens (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially an advertisement. Almost all the references are press releases or announcements. I notice that a number of the sources suggest as acceptable above contain extensive information--on prices, and details of using the system, which is not encyclopedic content . The definition of promotional content is content intended to appeal to the prospective user, and almost every one of these qualifies. (They all tend to copy each other, which is a good sign that they're derived form the same press release) The reason for the promotional coverage in so many local sources is, of course, that during the pandemic a great many people were looking for such services--we should indeed cover this, but in general articles and a very few of the refs above might be useful there. Google and the thousands of local web sites did an excellent job covering the possibilities--I have an extensive collection of links relevant to my area, and probably so do many of us. Despite the evident desires of some former officers of the WMF, we shouldn't try to duplicate Google.
I should add that. the function of a paid editor is to write encyclopedic content on topics relevant to their employer, if they are able to do so, not argue that promotional content is encyclopedic . They should submit the content, and let the rest of us decide about it. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with DGG. I do not expect, ever, an article by a paid editor to be at AfD precisely because they are paid to:
  • know, understand, and implement our policies
  • write good, clean copy
  • avoid any form of advertorial
  • hit the ground running
  • eschew WP:BOMBARD
In short I expect them to write good, clean, well referenced copy. I expect it not be subject to a subsequent deletion process. Their arguing against deletion is ludicrous for a paid editor. Improving the article to seek to ensure it is kept is their job. It is either notable, or it is not. At present it is not. Period. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, DGG Although I am a paid editor, I am also a human being (shocking, I know!). If I see an article I worked on get nominated for deletion due to a perceived lack of notability, and I believe that the nominator has made a mistake in their reasoning and the subject of the article is indeed notable, I am going to defend it. Expecting a paid editor's work to be so perfect that nobody else could even possibly disagree with them seems rather strange to me. And if somebody disagrees with me and wants to delete an article I wrote, then as a human being who values their work, I'm going to try to explain why I value that article as a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to be completely silent in such matters. Of course, I will respect the AFD process, and if at the end of the day it turns out I'm wrong, I will try to accept that and move on. But for now, I want my position to at least be properly represented here for the record, which I cannot expect will automatically be done without me. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Timtrent, DGG I was privately told that I'd made a serious mistake earlier, and I want to acknowledge and apologize for that mistake. The formatting of my first comment started with the words "keep" in bold, which I included, thinking it was merely an indicator of the direction of the statement to follow, rather than a vote itself. I was totally wrong about that, and what I did actually indicated I was voting myself, which you accurately pointed out as being deeply inappropriate. I didn't understand what the issue was until now, and I apologize for my earlier defensive tone and misleading inclusion of the bolded format. I've struck out that statement above, and ask the closer not to count my comments as a vote. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yitzilitt (paid) From my perspective you are perfectly entitled to offer the opinion that it be kept as long as (since this is an article for pay) you do that from your paid account and only from that account. I see you did that. As you know you may offer the formal bolded opinion once and once only. I believe you have done that, albeit struck out. I see no objection to your removing the striking out. Authors are allowed their opinion. It would be awful were that not so.
What you may wish to consider is that those who offer rebuttals to every opinion that runs counter to their desires seem not to prevail in these discussions. Less truly is more in AfD discussions. One good arrow fired once with excellent policy based arguments is all one needs. The closing admin will weigh policy based arguments in their close. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thanks for the advice, I'll unstrike my previous strikethrough (and will add a note to the effect that I've done just that). As both you and now also Elemimele have pointed put, less is more here, and I've lowered my chance of success by my long-winded replies. If you don't mind me asking, how do you typically manage to pull off minimalism? This is my first time seriously defending an article at AfD, and I'm finding it very difficult to be concise. What I mean by that (oh god I'm doing it now aren't I) is that either 1) I'll say something, and then people's responses indicate that they misunderstood what I was trying to say, so I want to reply to be more clear about what I intended, or 2) Someone else will say something that I think is incorrect/misguided, and if nobody else has pointed that out (especially if the issue at play is a subtle one), I feel compelled to reply with a technical counter-argument. Regarding 2, I guess what you're saying is that the closer will be competent enough to figure that out on their own, so I don't need to worry about that (though it might give me a lot of anxiety lol), but for 1, the issue is probably on me and my imperfect writing skills, so I don't feel like I can assume even a closer would get what I meant to say if I don't clarify myself.
I've read the AfD guidelines of course, but I still feel rather lost when it comes to social norms here. If I'm breaking any of them now, please forgive me/let me know. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yitzilitt (paid) I will respond on your talk page. There is a danger of diverting this discussion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: (1) because all the information I can find is routine churnalism/interviews/standard promotional press-releases, and (2) because if we don't delete, we send a message that anyone can get their company advertised in Wikipedia merely by interminable polite bludgeoning and wearing everyone down with walls of text. Elemimele (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sourcing in the article and that provided by Cunard. Responding to @HighKing: The most common is to support facts within the article. The other is to establish notability. A "review of the author's experiences" with the *product* does not establish notability of the *company* this criticism of the sources isn't necessarily wrong but ignores an important nuance: our notability guidelines mainly exist to make sure that the articles we have have enough coverage that they can be useful to our readers while being based off of reliable sources. Nit-picking about whether a source covers a product or a corporation isn't productive; it would not make sense to have an article simply on the SudShare product given that the product effectively is the corporation. And no, I don't think damnatio memoriae is warranted for this company either. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between making sure articles are useful (by including information on products for example) and using product reviews as references for establishing notability. Two different tasks, two different objectives. Nit-picking about which references may be used to establish notability is called following the guidelines. If the company is notable (as established by references that meet NCORP) then by all means have a section on the product/service. HighKing++ 20:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The issue here is whether this man was notable outside of his alleged connection to Anne Frank. If not, our guidelines suggest that he should be covered in an article about her, if at all. But arguments have been made here that he was in fact notable for other reasons, based on the sources cited in the article. And on that question, there's no consensus in this discussion. Sandstein 08:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold van den Bergh (notary)

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

Fails WP:1E. Obscure notary who in a recent book was accused of possibly being the betrayer of Anne Frank. That accusation is disputed (as noted in the article) and subject has no notability other than that disputed allegation. Should be deleted or merged into Anne Frank. If his guilt was not disputed and was well-established, there would be justification for a separate article on this person. But it is disputed and is not well-established or accepted by scholars at this point in time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: "Obscure" is not really the right word here… please try to keep any proposal WP:NPOV and contribute personal viewpoints as part of the discussion. —Sladen (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple:, appreciations for returning to Wikipedia, and contributing additional input.
  1. It is fairly usual that articles get expanded: for example, if an editor raises concerns about WP:Notability, it is usual to see additional citations added, documenting WP:Notability.
  2. We can see a new edit Special:Diff/1068130241/1068867655 (from yesterday) tagging {{Original research}} and, here on the AfD, also stating "lengthy footnotes" but… inspection of the article shows zero footnotes and all sentences individually referenced, including with |quote= and |trans-quote= for the benefit of readers (and editors) who may find working with scans of historic documents in multiple languages difficult—a situation unavoidable when the subject was active 70‒100 years ago, and in The Netherlands.
  3. Likewise, the formatting of Dutch names can vary; so in An interim Report on the Art Activities of Hermann Goering (1945) [in English] (cited fully in the article, and URL-linked above) the subject is named as both "van der Bergh" and "A. v.d. Bergh". To assist readers (and other editors) these names have been wikilinked using {{ill}} so that transcription differences like Hermann Göring/Goering are (hopefully) less confusing to readers (and editors).
In summary: editors are generally happy to attempt to address any concerns and to improve articles (that is the basis of Wikipedia), but it requires effort (and cooperation) on the part of those initiating AfD (and/or similar processes) to clearly spell out (ie. precisely and exactly) those concerns. Is that something you'd be willing to do? —Sladen (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily. Not only did this so-called event or his alleged role change the course of history, but the article clearly states and sources that he was a notable notary during his life. That's all that matters here. Trillfendi (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Synoman Barris:, don't think there was actually a problem with the move. It was simply noting that the Article (and therefore the Talk: page—where Coretheapple might have left any reply—would have also moved during the course of discussion. (And there appears to still be no reply, so the matter is somewhat mute). —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of a problem moving when in AfD. Maybe someone could explain this one to me. We always continue improving articles while in AfD! I saw the article as it was in AfD. Please move again to the correct location right after the discussion because, as we have no article on another person by this name, this is a totally trivial move and the current name is WRONG. I would have rather had it at the correct location all the time. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb:, again, don't think there is/was a problem with proposing the move. The (notary) disambiguated article name was following Dutch Wikipedia and because there's another Arnold van den Bergh [nl] (1857‒1932) (also from Oss…) (one of the sons of Simon van den Bergh who was was involved with Margarine Unie and founding of the Unilever empire. (ie. a disambig might be better in the long-run). Regarding "after the discussion", if the article should be kept/deleted, then please say so (here on the AfD), along with justification!… —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sladen, I did say so here and on the other page. We should never disambiguate where there is nothing to disambiguate, just because of some situation at Nlwiki. Went into lots of trouble and now a necessary improvement is undone. Synoman Barris, can you put the article back at Arnold van den Bergh? Your first move was perfect! gidonb (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gidonb,Sladen Per WP:EDITATAFD there is a clause Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion and Articles at AFD's should never be created into redirects. If this article is kept just post a request at WP:RM/TR or a ping will do and it will be immediately moved back. Cheers Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 07:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Synoman Barris, thanks. Will do. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; there's no justification in merging such a lot of information about van den Bergh into the Anne Frank article because the evidence is so disputed. Nevertheless, the accusation links him to a piece of history that is very relevant and interesting to WP's readers, who may therefore have a legitimate interest in his background and who he was. I know this is close to notability-by-inheritance, but it's more about fulfilling an encyclopaedia's role of providing background to important subjects and periods in history. He also clearly played a much wider role in society at the time, and there is no shortage of stuff written about him, even before the allegations. I think it's interesting enough, and well-enough sourced, to keep. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re your point and Sladen's above, since this nomination the article has been padded with primary sources, and synthesis. There are no secondary sources for the new material added. With that surplusage stripped out, there is very little that needs to be added to the Anne Frank article as it currently exists, if anything. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If an article about the village Honchyi Brid is created, this article can be undeleted via WP:REFUND for the purpose of merging it into the village article (to the extent editorial consensus supports that). Sandstein 08:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honchy Brid massacre

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

Last AfD had three sock puppets voting to keep out of 5 keep votes -->[43]. I'm re-nominating it for deletion due to unreliable and low-quality references used that do not meet ArbCom's recommendation for this topic area [44] - also a case of dubious notability. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus (grandson of Herodes Atticus)

[edit]
Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus (grandson of Herodes Atticus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a bare name in a family tree, fails WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Avilich (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Maria

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

He made a Self-PR. Nor relevant for Wikipedia. No good Sources. --Tromla (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is borderline malpractice. What’s labeled “German National TV“ is a municipal Public-access television station. The six sources for the introduction are mostly dead, the GND link works but does not, and has never, mentioned anything connected to the paragraph. I can definitely say that there is not and was never a ‘cult following’. The Teehaus Open Air is some beer garden’s summer promo event, and the only serious source is the Rheinische Post (mislabeled and typo’ed “Rhur something”. The others are street zines that take whatever contributions they get, the Böblinger something is the artist’s very very local paper doing a local-guy-makes-it-big-in-regional-sub center routine. K. Oblique 18:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wiki article is now deleted. Tromla (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Garcia Combs

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:FILMMAKER. Other than the lack of subject specific coverage, I don't think having made a film that has been reviewed by blogs and a screenplay that is in a library is enough to establish notability. BriefEdits (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is largely about her notable film, Nothing Special. If someone wants to spend a few minutes they could easily reorganize the article and move it to Nothing Special (film), but moves during deletion discussions are discouraged. However, I note that some of her other works may also be notable, for example Missouri Waltz (see Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Backstage, L.A. Times, L.A. Weekly). pburka (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescind nomination Per Pburka. Not really knowledgable about theatre but that amount of coverage will probably suggest that it is a notable piece of theater. My cynicism wants to discount it as mill local theater coverage (it's rather difficult to tell with LA) but I think I can err on the side of notability and just clean up the article instead. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westford School of Management, Sharjah

[edit]
Westford School of Management, Sharjah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article violates WP:NPOV as seen in the lead of the page and has only one reference on the page, which is a link to their own website. I searched up looking for articles to improve the page but it seems like there isn't a good variety of sources to choose from, only one source which is from Gulf News as far as what I could find. The page reads like a clear advertisment which violates WP:PROMOTION. I feel this page is not ready as yet to be in the mainspace, let me know your thoughts. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 08:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article is written like an add and only contains a single reference, which appears to be primary. I couldn't find anything that would constitute in-depth coverage of the school when I looked either. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Quincy Butler

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

Fails WP:POL by quite a long shot, unelected politician who's media attention is based on his fringe candidacy Bangabandhu (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link for ANC. Its the lowest level of DC government. Many of the positions are unopposed. WP:POL requires a position of some significance.Bangabandhu (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant about treating even the city coulcil of DC as like a state legislature, but anything below that level is just ludicrous. Even in states, nor all position that is elected on a statewide basis confers automatic notability. In Michigan where I live, we elect by state-wide direct balot the boards that oversee the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University. While in the MSU case in the wake of the Nassar scandal, there has been significant coverage of who is on the board and the board races, I am not ready to grant that every member of the MSU board in 1970 is default notable. These 3 boards were created by the 1962 Michigan constitution. That constitution actually shortened the number of offices elected on a state-wide basis though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policy states "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" ... So all politicians holding some sort of government or state office qualify. Nowhere I see here stating that only high level politicians qualify. If you can enlighten me as to how you came up with that conclusion, let me know. Plus the subject qualifies just based on news coverage and meeting WP:GNG. Caphadouk (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well the language you quote says "state-wide". In this case there are 39 ANCs, each one covering one of the 39 portions the District is divided into. People are members of one ANC, there is one council for each of the 39 areas. So this is not a district wide position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being part of the ANC in Washington DC clearly does not come even remotely close to meeting the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete falls well beneath WP:NPOL which does not include "all politicians holding some sort of government or state office" being covered and even if we consider Washington, DC as a state (which it is not) the ANC would not qualify because it has zero legislative duties or power. Campaign coverage and local political reporting generally do not contribute to WP:GNG per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The actual wording is something like first-level subdivisions in a federal style government. However the District of Columbia's unique status makes it less than clear that it meets that criteria. However since the ANCs have no legislative power the point is moot. We do not grant default notability to members of county councils/commissions/legislature/whatever else they may be called, even though in many cases they do have at least some legislative power (an in the case of true county commissions they are also to some extent the county executive, although there are several bodies called "county commission" that have the name basically as a legacy of the way things used to be, and no longer have legislative power, this is true of the 3 county cmissions in the tri-county Detroit Metro area where I live for example).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP " First, this page qualifies due to significant news coverage such as [47], [48] and [49].

Second, I want to point out that the numerator of this page has made significant edits to Muriel Bowser's page who is the current mayor of DC and also running again in the 2022 race against the subject. I suspect a policitail COI here, so maybe his vote should not be considered. Cuteblkguy (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the nominator is just interested in DC politics?? Bangabandhu's edits to Muriel Bowser include noting the rise in homicides during her administration and and a controversy surrounding one of her appointments so if they do have a COI the Bowser campaign should probably be asking for their money back. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm happy to give you a cut of the funds GPL93. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Remember we do not wait for elections to be over to see if someone may become notable in the end of the election. If someone is not notable but running for a position that will make them notable if they win the election, we delete the article and then recreate it at the end of the election cycle. Otherwise Wikipedia would become a free campaign platform to post a candidates campaign literature, and in the US there are some people who loose an election and essentially announce they are a candidate for the election the next time around immediately. So in some cases such a rule would make non-notable candidates perpetually able to have an article. This would actually probably apply to some candidates who were very far from ever winning anything, because some of these perpetual candidates are placeholders for one party or the other in races where there is no chance of them winning at all. There are various reasons these candidates exist, one is because of the US tendency to hold elections at multiple levels at once, and to have parties function at city, county, state and federal levels, this means even if your candidate for US House is not going to get over 35% of the vote, making sure there is someone running for US house in that district still may be key to mobilizing your party vote in that district in the state governors race, where the margin of victory is under 2%. It may also be kep to helping the candidate for state house in your party who will win on that other guys coattails in part of the district, even though your party candidate goes down to defeat in the whole race. Of course some people who on first brush look like perenial candidates, like Anderew "Rocky" Rackowski, who lost a closely contested US house race and a US senate race to the brother of the guy he lost to in the US house race, if you did deeper you realize at one point they were in the state legislature and so meet inclusion criteria, and you do not actually have to figure out if the congressional race coverage is enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Say what you will about perpetual candidates, but Calvin H. Gurley has achieved notability for his attempts. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I am reading things right, each of the 39 communities with an Advisory Neighborhood Comission, elects multiple commissioners. The ANC member is on a board that relates to the specific neighborhood (or cluster of neighborhods treated as one unit), they are not on a body that functions for the whole of the city. This is like a community council for any other sub-unit of a city, which at least if the sub-units are not offcial government bodies do not confer notability for membership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there's around 300 commissioners serving on the ANCs. It's amusing that we would even consider that ANC membership confers notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I think that is less than members of the New Hampshire House of representatives, but they are an actual legislative body. Although this also probably explains why we have articles on all the current about 107 members of the Michigan House of Representatives but if you look though New Hampshire House of Representatives, we probably only have articles on about a third. With all those redlinks I have to wonder if someone has gone through that article and made sure all the blue links are correct connections, I have found enough false positive links on much shorter film cast pages. There are 400 members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, so about one per 3,300 residents. Michigan it is basically 1 member of the state house per 90,000 residents. The Washington DC position works out to about one per 2,296 residents, but keep in mind they are not over the city as a whole, but just 1 of 39 divisions. Likewise the members of the Phoenix City Council may in general be notable (there are only 9, including the "mayor" who is the city-wide elected head of the city council, the city is run by a city manager), with a population of 1.6 million (to Washington's less than 700,000) but the members of the village councils are clearly not notable for such, and they I believe have more actual power than those in this position in DC (there are also way less such councils).John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Guatemala relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. No embassies, agreements, state visits. Article refers to a one off incident with the Iranian president. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_February_8&oldid=1072122383"