Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 10	August 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Joe Ada

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

A combination of the article and his obituary notes that he was the Mayor of Yona, Guam (pop. 6,298), an adjuntant professor, a former merchant marine, and a candidate for the legislature. As a local politician and candidate for office, Ada neither meets nor does not meet WP:NPOL. Local officials and candidates can meet it through a variety of ways such as longevity (e.g. Robert L. Butler) or through some sort of enduring nature of their candidacy (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). His time in office and his candidacy do not meet this. It also notes two criminal arrests. The first This article demonstrates that he was never charged for the first arrest and the second claimed arrest may not have been an arrest. This fails WP:CRIME. Note, Ada's predecessor, Pedo Terlaje would be presumed notable as a member of the Legislature of Guam and is treated differently. Mpen320 (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The mayor of a village that had some legal issue, none of which meets any notability standard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he was notable enough to receive a state funeral, and there seems to be enough coverage from sources to support the article. - Indefensible (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable mayor, the sourcing is all local. SportingFlyer T·C 13:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is relying on local coverage against the notability guidelines? - Indefensible (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We frequently use WP:ROUTINE as a guideline for reporting as one of the ways something can pass GNG, but still not be suitable for an encyclopaedia, and it's commonly used when deleting local politicians who have only received local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems excessive in my opinion. How is a state funeral routine and that person not considered notable enough for inclusion? This might be a source of WP:BIAS that skews coverage for smaller jurisdictions because of limited sourcing. - Indefensible (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like state funerals are for local political leaders in Guam, so just having a state funeral wouldn't be an automatic notability pass. And it's not a source of bias - it's making sure people are "of note" enough... not everyone who receives media coverage is eligible for an article here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We know that Wikipedia has systemic bias due to demographics and the construction of guidelines that influence the content even if we do not think we are biased. I think who is considered enough "of note" for inclusion via such discussions passes subjects through a filter which is probably biased on a systemic level. - Indefensible (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty easy though, it's just applying WP:ROUTINE, and reverse bias could exist as well - a mayor of a 6,000 person town in country A shouldn't be any more or less notable than a mayor of a 6,000 person town in country B, if they have only received marginal local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I lean more inclusionist, personally I would say all such mayors should be considered towards inclusion on notability rather than exclusion. However most such mayors probably do not receive a state funeral whereas this subject did, so that already seems to indicate additional notability beyond just the standard mayor of a small jurisdiction. - Indefensible (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is hard to evaluate local office-holders because news coverage of local jurisdictions varies widely. The subject may have connected friends since the coverage suggests the family requested the state funeral and numerous elected officials reflected on his passing. But all of that does not determine notability. What matters is coverage (and the type of coverage). For me, the publication in USA Today, along with the coverage of his arrests and his death just pushes this over the edge to meeting GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today article was just a reprint of a local Guam paper. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly - I did not examine it closely. That said, as all stories are written by local reporters, can we, or should we, distinguish between a reporter writing for the local press and the same reporter writing for a big national organization? Is the local TV reporter who is picked up by CNN or FOX for a breaking story now a national reporter? I don't have the answers but I don't think there necessarily is a clean way to clearly identify a "local" v. a "non-local" story. What matters to me is the substance of the sourcing. Can we write an article that is more than "he exists?" I think it is possible here (if just) - Enos733 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As stated above, Ada was notable enough in Guam to warrant a state funeral. And a mayor's position holds more weight and influence in a smaller territory like Guam than a larger state, even in a relatively small municipality. Scanlan (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG Lightburst (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we focus on sources please rather than asserting notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message at WikiProject Micronesia asking for input. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I closed this as no consensus, but, per discussion on my talk page, I have reverted and put it in the oldest still open log page. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 23:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source discussion: the first is his mortuary (fails GNG), the second is his policy platform for an upcoming election (routine election coverage), a feature article on the fact he passed away, a six-sentence article about him resisting arrest on the local television news, a separate? resisting arrest video (both of which made the news because he had been a mayor at that point), and two articles about his untimely passing, one of which - the state funeral one - is quite short. The amount of coverage isn't terrible, but traditionally we've held mayors are not notable just for being mayors - they have to be notable above and beyond being the mayor of a town - and the sourcing here is consistent with him being a mayor of the eighth-largest village in Guam. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The USA Today coverage is WP:NEWSPRIMARY, as are both of the other crime articles, and I don't think count towards GNG (or even BASIC) even besides that. The platform is almost entirely quotes. So we're left with... the obituaries? So, list of people offering condolences, etc. What else do we have? Newspapers.com doesn't bring up anything useful. He is a major local political figur, but as the footnote notes: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.... The subject has not received significant coverage. There is no "in-depth" here, at all. I realise it's just a passing comment, but on the amount of coverage, I'm going to have to disagree with SportingFlyer here, it kinda is. I'm not really sure which sources were being looked at, I have to assume its the same as what's already in the article or posted here, but even more I really don't see why this was requested to be relisted. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I've not seen anything that goes too in-depth on him, just a bunch of individual short news pieces. But I can see an opportunity to combine the sources per WP:NBASIC. SWinxy (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was commonsense snow delete‎. Lourdes 05:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TIME ENCRYPTION

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

Patently non-notable algorithm; it can't pass WP:GNG and has no other notable qualities that would pass another guideline. The article is also completely riddled with WP:OR. I also have reason to suspect Mark Haine (who commented extensively on the talk page in support of this article) is a sockpuppet of or closely related to this article's creator Sequel5, as they have similar writing styles and extremely similar points, and MH has literally no edits unrelated to this single article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails to pass WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very interesting subject but lacks supporting references. Article history might be COI as well. Maybe send back to draft for the author to continue working on... - Indefensible (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace, if this ever becomes notable, it can be added back to mainspace. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "If this ever becomes notable" is, in my opinion, an extremely poor reason to suggest WP:DRAFTIFYing. Draftifying is for improving an article whose subject is presumed notable, not for leaving indefinitely, praying that it becomes notable. Additionally, the article in its present state is essentially entirely WP:OR; there's almost nothing worth salvaging as far as Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are concerned. Additionally, this sort of thinking presumes that articles can't be recreated after an AfD, which simply isn't true. As long as a subject can be shown to be notable after a deletion at AfD, it can still be recreated. It's more of an uphill battle, but it absolutely doesn't preclude "if this ever becomes notable". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not meet WP:N or WP:V. I can't find any mentions. The one link in article makes no mention of the subject. Even this article states Little is known publicly. I'm hesitant to draftify something with literally zero verifiability. —siro χ o 05:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a risk this is a scam. This article may be a backdoor ad for a very expensive encryption app released by the company mentioned in the article. I found one reference with a lowercase version of the name that seems to potentially be referring to the same thing, on an app entry in an app store that allows for self-publishing of descriptions. A similarly named without the reference to the lowercase version of the name app has been removed from a different high-profile app store. —siro χ o 05:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the risk of a scam, I've removed the bulk of the information from the article per WP:PROVEIT. —siro χ o 05:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely this is some sort of off colour joke? The only "content" of the article being that it was created in 2023, and "little is known about the algorithm itself". --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – Hello @TheInsatiableOne:, @Siroxo: is trying very hard to get the article deleted by removing certain parts of the article. He might have an ulterior motive. Please recheck again. Sequel5 (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His "ulterior motive" was removing unverified and uncited content. See his link to PROVEIT. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly fails WP:GNG. I would not recommend draftification unless sources can be found; there's no point draftifying if the subject is not notable. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – Hello @Schminnte: If you are of the opinion that US National Security classification is not notable, let us all be prepared to remove all classified content from wikipedia with minimal secondary sources. Sequel5 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already spoken to you on your talk page: these comments add nothing to the discussion and are approaching WP:BLUDGEONING. Please stop. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – Its a discussion page. Discussing is not BLUDGEONING. Please stop being toxic. Delete the article if you have to. But stop this. Sequel5 (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tirelessly replying to every single comment in order to hammer your viewpoint is the definition of BLUDGEONING TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – Great teamwork. All the best. Wont waste more time Sequel5 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to show that it has "US National Security classification" just that the BIS said it was not export restricted KylieTastic (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – @KylieTastic: BIS is the parent body of National Security Agency. All encryption licenses have to be reviewed by NSA as a law. Please consider researching. Sequel5 (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The parent of the National Security Agency is the Department of Defense "NSA is part of the U.S. Department of Defense" KylieTastic (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – @KylieTastic: Please check this link : BIS Jurisdiction Sequel5 (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sequel5, it does not mention the NSA and that still does not change the fact that your source just states that something had a classification. It does not say what it was, or what it was classified as. Not that a LinkedIn post is a trusted source but this also just says they granted an encryption item is authorised for export, which could mean it was as simple as a Caesar cipher. The honest thing would be to say the Bureau of Industry and Security has said that it can be exported under 740.17(b)(3) which would actually indicate that they do not consider it to be "the most secure and powerful encryption service in the world". KylieTastic (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Classification by Bureau of Industry and Security. Sequel5 (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nothing to show this any anything but pure fiction and a hoax - as it relates to security this should be removed as soon as possible. The "Smatter eagle" 3.0 https://smatter.co.uk app was also still 3.0 over a year ago without magic encryption. This just looks like pure meaningless marketing: "Time Encrypted - Every Millisecond has to be reverse engineered" is meaningless word salad. The claim claim "Messages secured by US National Security Agency Classified Time Encryption" is also misleading making it sound secure when the response from the Bureau of Industry and Security (not the N.S.A) said it's fine to export, not classified. This has clearly been created to promote and give validity to the claims see this. KylieTastic (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I too was asked for help by Sequel5 by email. KylieTastic (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creator comment – Hello @KylieTastic:, thank you for your time. We wanted neutral participation in the discussion. We have invited administrators to oversee the discussions. Sorry if we were in violation of conduct. Sequel5 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sequel5: Stop trying to WP:CANVASS me through my email. Noah^Talk 10:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – Hello @Hurricane Noah:, thank you for your time. We wanted neutral participation in the discussion. We have invited administrators to oversee the discussions. Sorry if we were in violation of conduct. Sequel5 (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sequel5, who is "we"? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sequel5 has removed several of their earlier comments in response to other editors !votes. I note this in particular because this may remove some of the context from the above discussion. [1] —siro χ o 05:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatantly not notable; previous versions likely met G11 and I suspect this is some sort of scam so G3 may also apply. The only "sources" I was able to find were the company's website, which as KylieTastic noted looks like a scam (they have an app they're charging $350 for, totally normal stuff), and a LinkedIn post by the CEO "announcing" it, which links a source...this Wikipedia article. Not linking that (beans) but if you Google the company name and the article name together, you'll find the same stuff. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Reasons

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, only 1 (questionable) review found and cited. No others found in a BEFORE.

Previously deleted in an AfD, but recreated. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, in small part, to Spencer Hawken, the writer and director. There's some verifiable info that could fit in that article. —siro χ o 07:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Norris, Michelle (28 November 2013). "Essex lands starring role in new films". The Essex Enquirer. Archived from the original on 16 February 2016. Retrieved 17 August 2023.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  The article notes: "The story of No Reasons revolves around Jodie, a fresh faced young teenager who one day fails to come home from school. The focus is then put on her parents, Sally and Paul as they try to piece together the tatters of their life without their much loved child. But as the story probes deeper the movie will reveal a darker more sinister side as to why Jodie disappeared. Hornchurch and Brentwood are going to be the key locations within the movie, with private properties already secured for filming. The cast already includes 80s sensation Emily Lloyd and filming is due to begin shortly."
2. Greene, Andy (2 February 2014). "Death Walks, The World's First Zero Budget Horror Movie, Completed". Famous Monsters of Filmland. Famous Monsters of Filmland. Archived from the original on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 17 August 2023.
  The article notes: "Last year Spencer Hawken and Lucinda Rhodes created the movie Death Walks, they followed this up with a very different horror story Revisited. Now they begin work on No Reasons, a thriller centered around every parents nightmare. Set in Brentwood and Hornchurch the movie begins with the disappearance of 14-year-old Jodie, the movie then follows an 18 month journey for the parents as they try to discover what has become of their daughter. It’s not until a private investigator steps in however that a terrible secret, and a hidden underground world becomes exposed. The movie is being shot for a modest £30,000 which in movie terms is very little indeed, yet the creators have gathered a very interesting cast together that includes some big names from yesteryear. “I’m a big believer in picking up people that have been forgotten by the mainstream, we have a clutch-full of very popular former Eastenders stars, a once Oscar nominated actress, and some familiar faces doing something very different to how we normally see them,” says Spencer Hawken,“ some of whom we have already gone public with, others we are keeping tight lipped about for as long as possible. I love when your sat watching a film or a TV show and suddenly this familiar face pops up you were not expecting.” Hawken describes No Reasons as a tale unlike any other, a bit like Grange Hill meets Saw. “I’m a big believer in not doing what others are, No Reasons is a genre-jumping movie, with some very edgy ideas, and a very vivid imagination.” Names currently attached to the project include Daniel Peacock (Robin Hood – Prince Of Thieves), and Jessie Williams (TV’s Tracy Beaker and The Dumping Ground)."
3. "Kickstarter Film 'No Reasons' Looks for Funding". Love Horror. 14 May 2014. Retrieved 17 August 2023.
  The article notes: "Kickstarter, the site that acts as a springboard for many aspiring film makers is being used by film making duo Spencer Hawken and Lucinda Rhodes to fund the last part of their film project, No Reasons. The pair have completed 90% of the film and the final piece of funding is to enable them to add some much needed special effects and give the final bit of polish to this piece of work. No reasons is a dark thriller that revolves around the disappearance of a young schoolgirl and follows follows Paul (Marc Bannerman) and Sally (Lucinda Rhodes) as they struggle to comes to ters with their missing daughter and search for answers. The film plays as a whodunnit but contains taboo elements which have led it to be described as ‘contraversial’ and compared to films such as A Serbian Film and The Human Centipede. The cast contains a fair amount of notable talent and the project looks certain to draw plenty of attention in the horror community, making it an excellent gig to get involved with for any potential backers."
4. Russell, Rickey (5 February 2014). "Cast Announced For No Reasons". Movie Pilot. Movie Pilot. Archived from the original on 29 March 2014. Retrieved 17 August 2023.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  The article notes: "The cast has been announced for Hawken Rhodes’ “No Reasons”. Marc Bannerman, Lucinda Rhodes, Roland Manookian, Elisha Applebaum, Lorraine Stanley, Daniel Smales, Scott Mullins, Jazz Lintott, Jon Guerriero, Daniel Peacock, Dexter Koh, Jessie Williams, and Holly Boeva have all signed on for the Spencer Hawken directed project. When Jodie goes missing, her parents are left behind to pick up the pieces. They frantically try every option to get her to come home, or for her kidnappers to release her. While they search the mortuaries looking for clues, a private investigator discovers a murky world and a terrible secret everyone wants to keep."
5. Anderson, Hayley (24 March 2014). "Havering plays the starring role in future blockbuster". Romford Recorder. Newsquest. Archived from the original on 15 February 2016. Retrieved 17 August 2023.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  The article notes: "Spencer Hawken, 40, of London Road, Brentwood, a screenwriter, producer and director, has chosen the borough once again as the backdrop to his latest creation, No Reasons. He describes it as “a mixture of the makings of a kitchen sink drama as well as a horrific crime thriller”. Spencer directed Death Walks, a zombie movie filmed in Havering last year. His new project stars famous faces in the form of ‘Allo Allo’s Vicki Michelle and 2013 Big Brother runner-up Dexter Koh. Dexter said: “No Reasons has reignited my love for the British film industry. It’s amazingly wicked!” Other stars include ex-Hollyoaks actor Stuart Manning and Roland Manookian, who has worked with director Guy Ritchie and who said he wanted a role because of its “level of darkness”. Focusing on the aftermath of a girl going missing, there are elements that have been inspired by some of the top British crimes in the past 20 years, Spencer said. He added: “There are certain parts of the film that have been taken from four separate news stories that caught my attention, making it an incredibly dark picture.” From Hornchurch Library in North Street, Hornchurch, to The Brickyard bar and grill in South Street, Romford, the film is mainly set in Havering. Spencer said: “When we shot Death Walks in Romford, we got so much support from the area and that was kind of the incentive that drove us to coming back here.” Residents were given a chance to be part of the movie. Former Harold Wood schoolboy Spencer said: “I hope the people of Havering will really enjoy it.” No Reasons will be released at a date to be announced this year."
6. Anderson, Hayley (24 March 2014). "Film No Reasons to be premiered at Mercury Mall". Romford Recorder. Newsquest. Retrieved 17 August 2023.
  The article notes: "A film which has been 18 months in the making, will be shown for the first time at Premiere Cinema in the Mercury Mall on Friday. No Reasons is described by director Spencer Hawken as a “kitchen sink horror” with plenty of plot twists as the audience follows the tale of a couple’s 14-year-old daughter going missing. Famous faces are seen throughout the film, including former Hollyoaks and Casualty actor Stuart Manning, Vicki Michelle from ‘Allo ‘Allo! and Jazz Lintott from The Real Hustle. Locations such as The Brickyard, Mercury Mall, in Romford, and Fairkytes Arts Centre in Hornchurch are used as backdrops."
7. Wilkin, Andy (12 May 2014). "No Reasons (Movie) by Spencer Hawken and Lucinda Rhodes". Archived from the original on 12 June 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2023.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  The article notes: "No Reasons (Movie) by Spencer Hawken and Lucinda Rhodes. No Reasons is the story of a missing girl and the family left behind. Over the course of 18 months the story follows Paul (Marc Bannerman) and Sally (Lucinda Rhodes) Bryant, as they struggle to come to terms with her disappearance. No Reasons plays out like an old fashioned whodunit, there are clues, mysteries, revelations, and shocking secret that everyone wants to keep. No Reasons also stars Lorraine Stanley (who currently is shooting Suffragette with Meryl Streep and Helena Bonham Carter) as Simone a woman so terrifying she puts Glen Close’s performance in Fatal Attraction to shame. Vicki Michelle an actress known to millions for three decades thanks to her role in Allo Allo. Roland Manookian star of The Business, The Football Factory, and Goodbye Charlie Bright. Anna Karen best known for her performance as Olive from 70’s smash hit comedy On The Buses. Stuart Manning of popular teen soap Hollyoaks. Dexter Koh runner up of of 2013’s Big Brother. Jessie Williams children’s TV icon with successful shows The Dumping Ground and Tracy Beaker returns already under her wing for several years at the age of just 15. Jazz Lintott star of BBC3’s The Real Hustle, and the controversial thriller Airbourne. And last but no means least Daniel Peacock (Quadrophenia, Only Fools And Horses) as the bungling private investigator Maurice. What makes No Reasons so unique is it’s story, it covers a number of touchy and taboo areas not yet covered by British cinema. Compared already by industry players as a combination of Kitchen Sink drama meets A Serbian Film and The Human Centipede, and compared in controversial ranking by industry head Steven Woolley as on a par to Ken Russell’s The Devils. It is also with a budget of just £25,000 one if the lowest budget British movies ever to be made with such an enormous cast of familiar faces. Director/writer/producer Spencer Hawken promises there has never been a British movie quite like this, and that is why so many known performers lowered their fee to be part of the action. The film was shot in Havering and Brentwood, Essex with hundreds of people volunteering for roles, and to help put the film together. Big locations such as Romford’s The Brickyard gave their venue to the films producers for use in the film. Other locations included Big Cars, The Havering Well, Brentwood Police Station, and dozens of private residences. 90% of the movie is complete! with the aforementioned special effects scenes being all that remains to shoot."
8. Marshall, Lucy (January 24, 2021). "From Orchard Park to Amazon Prime: The Hull actor told he would never make it". Hull Daily Mail. Retrieved 17 August 2023.
  The article notes: “The horror film actor added: "I had a few sleepless nights when characterising Kevin, even though your playing a character you can’t help but become overwhelmed by the themes. I think you have a certain level of performance confidence to take these types of roles on. I based my character on an old school teacher, he had slicked hair to the side flat to his head which inspired the characteristic in the film. He always wore a suit jacket or shirt and had square point shoes I even managed to get those details into the film. Despite all this we have had great positivity through the success of No Reason, I’ve not heard a bad thing about the film expect it's not going to be for everyone as it is very dark.”
9. Bannerman, Stuart (6 September 2016). "All the reasons to watch No Reasons ( Now on Prime Video)". frompage2screen. Retrieved 17 August 2023.
  The article notes: “The movie covers some pretty despicable characters. It's great to see Mark Bannerman stretching himself and doing something completely different believe me this is different ... A couple played by Marc Bannerman and Lucinda Rhodes have lost their child. She's been missing for some time and over the course of the first half hour of the film that time frame shows that kind of progresses. It's a little bit hazy as to how long she's been missing but we're talking like a couple of years. They are the kind of people that try and pull you back so you've got a collection of some nice characters and some not nice characters, who all eventually become not nice characters ... It's not an easy film to talk about there are a lot of themes in there, it's a lot to unpack ... As an independent filmmaker in Britain you need that enthusiasm, you need that drive otherwise your movie is not going to get made. It's a pretty solid movie it looks good, it sounds good."
10. "No Reasons (2021)". letterboxd. 11 February 2021. Retrieved 17 August 2023. and No Reasons (2016, 2021). YouTube. 11 February 2021. Retrieved 17 August 2023.
  The article notes: “A bad take on a difficult topic, this movie contains more sexual assault and rape scenes than I've ever seen put to film, and it does it all with no impact, no gravitas, and an air of flippancy that honestly just made me upset. This isn't even a "dare" movie like A Serbian Film, it handles everything in such a juvenile, adolescent way for bad attempts at continually ramping up perceived shock value and falls flat in every relatable way as a result."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ‘’No Reasons’’ to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and WP:Film which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It also meets the requirements of receiving full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. S6GHSAM4 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of evidence above that WP:NFILM is met, primarily through WP:NFP. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is fairly thorough and meets the GNG. The Essex Enquirer, Famous Monsters, and first Romford Recorder sources look good, and there is clearly enough information to be gleaned from the various other reviews and database entries to write a proper article, which it seems has been done. Toadspike (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Star

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

So comically non-notable I'm in disbelief that it was undraftified somehow. The two sources cited are random WP:UGC from Twitter, and I can find nothing that could possibly elevate this to the required notabililty. This subject as it stands has absolutely no place being its own article, and I implore the article's creator to read up on Wikipedia's guidelines on notability (e.g. WP:GNG, WP:WEBSITE). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who moved this article to draft space initially, I'm inclined to agree. And this page could easily be merged with Dermot Hudson, if there are any reliable citations found. ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah so the twitter is the account of Dermot Hudson + surely the more knowledge available on Wikipedia the better? There are so many articles on some random village with 15 people living there or some rare species of frog which went extinct 100 years ago like you going to merge those too? Like if I made an article of a list of election campaigns from the WIMLMZT it’d make sense, but this is a thing, that exists.

i used those sources as proof of existence for the earlier issues as like that was the only way they were being shared + on Facebook probably. Marxistnatalie (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marxistnatalie. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:PRIMARY, WP:MAPOUTCOMES, and WP:SPECIES on top of the ones listed above if these are your concerns. Please also see the essay WP:ENN, which is not itself an official Wikipedia guideline but instead adequately explains how they pertain to your concern of "it exists; it deserves an article." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, please also see WP:SOAPBOX as I noted on your talk page. You seem to have an extensive history of political soapboxing within this project and may be restricted from editing topics related to politics in the future should you continue to ignore repeated warnings against it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing that points to any notability whatsoever. Marxistnatalie, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument to use in this kind of discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable journal, fails GNG and NJOURNALS. The Twitter sources cited are pretty obviously not reliable or independent. WJ94 (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge barely-existing journal for the proponent or proponents of a British communist splinter group following North Korean ideology, sourced only to two twitter posts by its editor. No evidence of passing WP:GNG nor any of the suggested criteria in WP:NJOURNALS. Not even worthy of a merge to its main proponent, Dermot Hudson, because we do not have WP:BLP-adequate sourcing for including it in Hudson's article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sentiment "the more knowledge the better" is not a sufficient rationale for keeping this article. Fails GNG and NJOURNALS. Sourcing to Twitter or other social media does not indicate notability ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seemingly no real-world traces of notability at this time - even the twitter post references have no "weight" (widespread engagement, notable replies & interest, etc). A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Melton

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

See Reliable sources noticeboard on Attorney at Law magazine. This is a local city councilman and a run-of-the-mill attorney with no significant coverage that I can find. Most of the sources used are self, or local coverage; the notability seems to have rested on the Attorney at Law magazine link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah, with the exception of the Attorney at Law magazine and source #3, there's no sources outside of the local area the lawyer serves in. Sure, there's a Axios source but shocker! it's in the local area and doesn't have significant coverage of the subject, like some of the sources in the article. Delete per nominator. Tails Wx (they/them) 03:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that "source #3" is not independent; Melton was a client of that targeted marketing firm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is one of the first openly LGBT people to serve on the Raleigh City Council, which governs a major Southern city. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Willthacheerleader18 created the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local councillor - all of the coverage on him is local, not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "One of the first two [insert underrepresented minority group] to serve on city council in his own city, while not even close to being the first nationwide" is not a notability claim that automatically makes a city councillor more special than every other city councillor by itself — we would need to see a reason why his sphere of notability had expanded to encompass more than just his own city, which that isn't. And the article is based entirely on a mixture of primary sources, which aren't support for notability at all, and run of the mill local coverage in the local alt-weekly, which isn't enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG on that basis alone. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete as nom.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SandyGeorgia your nomination is already a !vote, this should be struck. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cluestick :). Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our subject's main claim to fame seems to be that he "is the one of the first two openly gay people to serve on the Raleigh City Council." But that's not enough, thankfully, in our day and age. This is about a local councillor without enough sources out there to support independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL per sources here and elsewhere. User:Let'srun 01:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to United24. History remains under the redirect if there's a desire to merge. I don't see a relist helping Star Mississippi 02:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United24 Media

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

This is debatably CSD-A7. Not seeing much depth of coverage or sustained coverage. First reference out of three is ~~a pro-Ukrainian blog~~ some sort of extremely polemical press release from a media agency of the Ministry of Defense. Schierbecker (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First reference is not a pro-Ukrainian blog but a Media agency of the Ministry of Defense created in 2018 when different ministry media were reorganized and consolidated. Ceriy (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word. Thanks. Schierbecker (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United24. If I'm seeing this correctly, United24 Media is just the YouTube channel (or a YouTube channel) of the United24 campaign. There's no evidence of standalone notability for that channel here, as it doesn't seem to receive any individual attention not connected directly to United24; accordingly, it fails WP:GNG. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B'laster Holdings

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

B'laster Holdings

This article, in article space, is one of three articles in three namespaces about this company that does not satisfy corporate notability because the coverage is not independent secondary coverage. The three articles are:

B'laster Holdings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the subject of this AFD;
Draft:B'laster Holdings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:BB38532/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The first and third are the work of User:BB38532, who is a single-purpose account, and the second is partly the work of BB38532, and also of another SPA who has declined to answer whether they have a conflict of interest. The existence of the two articles in draft and user space is only evidence of an apparent campaign to publish an article. The draft was declined five times and has been rejected twice.

So does B'laster Holdings satisfy corporate notability? An article should speak for itself and explain why the company is notable, but the article consists of what the company says about itself, not what third parties have written. The references are not independent secondary coverage, but include press releases, an interview, and trade publications.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	news5cleveland.com	One in a series boosting Ohio businesses	No - See organizational independence	Yes	Yes	Yes
2	prnewswire.com	A press release about an acquisition	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	counterman.com	Another press release about an acquisition	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	americanmotorcyclist.com	A story about being the official rust remover of motorcycle races	No - See organizational independence	Yes	Yes	Yes
5	aftermarketnews.com	An interview with the COO	No	Yes	Yes	No

We can conclude that the AFC reviewers who declined and rejected the draft were right, and the article should be deleted, and the draft and the sandbox can be ignored (unless they are resubmitted). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It's not clear how AmericanMotoryclist.com is not independent of this company, trade publications being marked "use with care," but yes, the sourcing is overall weak. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of notability-supporting sources being inadequate in both number and quality. And that's not an assessment proffered before the necessary work was done. -The Gnome (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In situ electron microscopy

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

This article does not make any sense. There is nothing called "in situ electron microscopy" the same way there is nothing called "in situ x-ray diffraction". It is just the ability to use the EM while doing an experiment. The references are about that, doing an experiment while imaging or characterising, i.e., using the EM. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essentially an WP:OR topic name. UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Traditionally, electron microscopes examine samples in stable configurations, after careful preparation. The article is specifically about imaging with an electron microscope in a dynamic environment, like while an experiment is taking place. The topic has significant coverage separate from electron microscopy in general, see review article book1 book2 conference. I agree the article does not introduce the subject very clearly at the moment, but the topic has enough coverage that I think it can be improved. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 03:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Forbes72 Environmental scanning electron microscope is a good example of what are you trying to say when talking about developing a microscopy for a specific test. and - quoting the review article that you mentioned - "The recent advances in in situ methods, including liquid and gas sample environment, pump-probe ultrafast microscopy, nanomechanics and ferroelectric domain switching the aberration corrected electron optics as well as fast electron detector has opened new opportunities to extend the impact of in situ TEM in broad areas of research ranging from materials science to chemistry, physics and biology. In this article, we highlight the development of liquid environment electron microscopy .. (PS: I linked the developed EMs)

to expand on the example, the environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) is an example of in situ microscopy, specifically for studying samples in their natural or hydrated states. Traditional electron microscopes typically require samples to be in a vacuum, which can alter or damage certain materials or biological specimens. However, ESEM allows for imaging samples in a controlled environment with variable pressure, enabling observation of materials and biological samples without extensive sample preparation.

thus, "in situ microscopy" as a thing does not exist but developing instruments to allow for in situ testing exits. the article is about the first

The article should not exists the same way that an article about "Operando X-ray" should not. Cheers .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Environmental scanning electron microscope article does indeed mention in situ techniques. Along these lines, I guess you could try and merge all the in situ information into the individual articles for specific kinds of electron microscopes, as you seem to suggest. But since "in situ electron microscopy" is addressed as the main topic of secondary scholarly sources, having a similarly scoped article on Wikipedia mentioning the applications of in situ measurements for individual microscopes (TEM, ESEM etc.) is not just a a neologism. A singular "in situ electron microscope" might not exist as a distinct physical object, but I don't think that's a good reason to delete an article, since we have plenty of Wikipedia articles about scientific techniques. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 14:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE style search turns up a review article "Frontiers of in situ electron microscopy" and and a couple of books In-situ Electron Microscopy: Applications in Physics, Chemistry and Materials Science, and chapter 1 of "In-situ Electron Microscopy at High Resolution" as decent-looking secondary RS for the field of in situ EM. The field thus seems notable. I think the crux of the dispute here is the researcher's POV. For some, EM technology is most important and the specimens studied are secondary. For others, the specimens are the important thing and the kind of EM used is secondary. For the latter, the ability to analyze specimen dynamics in situ is the important thing and so for them, situ EM is a bona fide field. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be particularly good to see response to the most recent sources posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep as I searched in the browser I got many results in this topic so keep this article as it can be improved MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity of sources is not relevant. Quality, with regard to WP:42 is. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Information Processing

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 20:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Vermont. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just from a quick google, there seems to be plenty of reporting about the company. Thriley (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is not routine news: [2]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did a Google search and found some good articles, so it's a keep for me based on 1 and 2.Royal88888 (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users have said that Google shows many good sources. Are they being used in the article? Is this about deleting or keeping the current article or the article as it might be rewritten? -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will examine the sources either today or tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 10:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove promotional intro. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A poor attempt has been made to update the article. Lets look at the references in the first two blocks. It should prove notability per WP:NCORP if the references are there:

Ref 1 [3] This is 404
Ref 2 [4] An IBM doc for a system. Non-RS
Ref 3 [5] Ad for MSI 66. Non-rs
Ref 4 [6] Truckers got connected. Doesn't mention them. Would fail WP:SIRS
Ref 5 [7] VIP landing page. Non-rs.
Ref 6 [8] Another VIP page. Non-rs.
Ref 7 [9] 404
Ref 8 [10] G Maps entry. Non-rs
Ref 9 [11] Case report. Non-RS.

Looking at the 9 references, not a single one pass WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP. In fact most of them seem to be non-rs. I've seen a couple of keep !votes. Looking at the first one, where an attempt at WP:THREE was made:

Ref 1 [12] Ultra-local newspaper that both fails WP:AUD and more fails WP:ORGIND as its a PR piece that involved the whole staff. It is not independent.
Ref 2 [13] Non-rs. Fails WP:AUD and WP:SIRS. WP:PRIMARY. It is not independent.

These two references are junk. The last keep !vote is a drive-by editor with no interest in examining the source. This article fails WP:SIRS, WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't care if the article is kept or not, but I will chime in that Vermont Public is the statewide PBS and NPR station, and I'd say it's not fair to say that it fails the AUD and SIRS criteria. I'd also say Vermont Business Magazine being the largest business magazine in a state meets the AUD criteria as described, Statewide is described as a sufficient audience for AUD. Dark centauri (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also https://vtdigger.org/2023/08/02/national-labor-relations-board-orders-colchester-software-company-to-reinstate-4-employees/ is a statewide news publication with a large audience. Dark centauri (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA who has just arrived. scope_creep^Talk 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An infrequent editor, but their first edit was almost five years ago. Do you have any reply to the substance of the comments? FWIW, I had the same thought about Vermont Public. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is either WP:COI editor or a UPE or both. He has made exactly 9 edits, 4 of them have been to the article or the Afd. Per policy, any editor who a WP:COI must declare, which includes declaring here as well. I no time for games for people who are not here for Wikipedia and have they're own seperate agenda. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I live and work in the area, saw the news article, checked the page, I have never worked or been associated with Vermont Information Processing.

But like I said before I'm not debating the article being up, I just think you are incorrect to called those insufficient sources from an AUD standpoint. Dark centauri (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor to be clear am I affiliated with Vermont Public, or Vermont Business Magazine. Dark centauri (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, can you provide any substantial response instead of tossing out unsupported accusations? -- Pemilligan (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dark centauri: What news article did you see? scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The initial article that brought me to this Wikipedia page was the vtdigger article on 08/02. This was my initial edit to the page to include that article after I had read it. Special:Contributions/69.5.127.66 I forgot to log in when making the edit. Dark centauri (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep Also in reading the WP:SPA link, accusing me of WP:COI and WP:UPE is a bit WP:DNB. Considering my two edits to this page was to include a news article I read and then change the organization for that single article. Then my participation here was just to clear up that I thought Vermont Public had a sufficient enough WP:AUD not to be excluded on that alone. Dark centauri (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. And I want to see an end to this sniping at other editors. If someone makes a valid argument, it doesn't matter whether they are a SPA or not. And being a SPA doesn't mean someone has a COI, it's just that they have a specific interest in a subject. Don't try to undermine other editors by making unfounded accusations, focus on the merits of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. Going to comment on the specific sources mentioned above:

This in Vermont Biz is an article on the topic company celebrating their 50th year in operation. But it is based *entirely* on an interview with their Operations Director Louise Morgan and another employee Heather Burnett who provides a detailed "history" and list of highlights. It then interviews some of their clients who also provide quotes. It is a "puff profile" which is a form of stealth marketing. There isn't a single bit of "Independent Content" that meets ORGIND criteria. In some ways it is similar to an article published in Tech Issue in October 2019 which is based on an interview with Human Resources assistant Stephanie Slocum and the company president Dan Byrnes and Director of strategy and supplier sales Rau Rouleau as well as testimonials from customers. Lots of the same history and stories but also fails ORGIND.
This on the Invest Ottawa website is a blog post. As per WP:RS blogs are not usually regarded as reliable sources. The article was written by Invest Ottawa's Marketing and Communications strategist. It has no "Independent Content", it is another "puff profile" that closely follows the same format as the other articles above. Fails ORGIND.
Vermont Public announcement about a lawsuit is an example of "trivial coverage" as per CORPDEPTH and doesn't provide any "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH

They sound like a lovely company but everything I can find relies entirely on information provided by people/companies/customers related to the topic company with no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: This subject does not quite meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP as it stands. They were involved in a different lawsuit [[14]] and ran a daycare center [[15]]. User:Let'srun 11:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shah Mahmud Khan. There's a good case not to merge unsourced information, but it is a viable ATD for the reader. Star Mississippi 02:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zalmai Mahmoud Ghazi

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Afghanistan, and France. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Merge. I added a few sources from Newspapers Extended. There are likely more but in English-language papers the name is often spelled in different ways so you have to hunt and peck. The Sacramento Bee article calls him "Prince Zalmay Mahmood Ghazi" for example. ~~If others think there's not enough WP:SIGCOV in the sources on the page now, cast your Delete !vote and I can go try to dig up more.~~ After reading [16] my best guess is that he was killed along with the rest of the Afghan royal family in the April 1978 coup, but I couldn't find an RS where he's named specifically. They didn't even identify the body of the prime minister Daoud Khan until 20 years later when they dug up the mass graves, and that was with dental records, not DNA. So instead of having this be a perma-stub, I would suggest merging the content to the page of his father Shah Mahmud Khan. BBQboffin (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Merge to his father's article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. General diplomatic announcements; embassy's history; and irrelevancies. There is practically nothing that could prop up some claim to independent notability. There is not enough to even merge, since unsourced material is not moved around Wikipedia; it gets deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ and I'll note strongly that this should go through AfC if it is improved. If it doesn't, it risks G4 and the creator, sanctions. Star Mississippi 02:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moulvibazar Govt. High School

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

This page is kind of a mess. It's completely unsourced, has formatting and grammatical errors in several places, and almost reads like a rough translation from another language in spots. While the tone isn't blatantly promotional, it does also have that "feeling" of trying to promote the institution perhaps implicitly.

The page has been draftified twice previously (under a slightly different name). The most recent draft was ultimately G13'd, and while I can't see the deleted version, I have a feeling that this mainspace version isn't a significant improvement from the drafts. Since draftification appears to be controversial, sending the page here for a consensus on how to proceed. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some grammatical errors in this article. But there is no attempt to promote the institution implicitly. Rather all information is true. The institution is already one of the most prestigious institutions in the greater Sylhet area in Bangladesh which is also historical being established in 1891. There is not enough information about the institution online but it has offline legacy. That's why enough references have not been added.

This article has to be improved. But it should not be deleted. Note: This article already existed in another language on Wikipedia. Prince of Fairy Tale (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Fairy Tale: I'm not sure if you're aware, but you can still cite books and other written media; it just has to be verifiable. As for having been established in 1891, something having existed for a long time doesn't make it inherently notable. I would also give WP:OTHERLANGUAGEEXISTS a read. tl;dr The fact that something exists on another project doesn't warrant inclusion here. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some reliable citation as evidence of notability. Prince of Fairy Tale (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moulvibazar Govt. High School is the central school in Moulvibazar, Bangladesh. Prince of Fairy Tale (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an institution like Dhaka Collegiate School, Government Laboratory High School, Rajshahi Collegiate School, Chittagong Collegiate School and College, Bindu Basini Govt. Boys' High School, Motijheel Government Boys' High School, Bogra Zilla School, Mymensingh Zilla School and all other district government schools in Bangladesh. Prince of Fairy Tale (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would take a look at WP:WHATABOUTX. Other things existing doesn't exclude this from notability standards. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some reliable citation as evidence of notability. Prince of Fairy Tale (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with it reading like an advert. The manner that the article author replied to the deletion discussion with plenty of WP:Puffery doesn't help. The article has almost no citations (it appears that it cites its own Notable Alumni?) and does not denote any notability. With two previous draft attempts, I would say putting back in the draft namespace would be unwise unless someone can provide notability at the very least. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some reliable citation as evidence of notability. Prince of Fairy Tale (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Give the article creator a chance to improve the article. They can go through the WP:AFC process.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me to improve the article? I think you know something about the institution or you have some idea about this type of institution. Prince of Fairy Tale (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moulvibazar Govt. High School is a famous and well-reputed institution in Greater Sylhet area in Bangladesh. This is the central school in Moulvibazar District of Bangladesh.

Don't you think the institution is notable enough to be listed as an article on Wikipedia? Prince of Fairy Tale (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relax and take a deep breath. Take a moment to read Wikipedia:Notability and understand that the sources must show the subject is notable. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to understand what is considered a reliable source. Creating an article should not be your first steps in Wikipedia. I would recommend improving existing articles as it will allow you to understand the policies of the site. Right now this article is not in shape to stay in mainspace. Drafting will allow you to improve the article and work with other editors. Ask for draftfication and accept that it might take months to create the article. This will give you enough time to find sources and improve the article. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is right in saying that this article is a pretty big mess. It's a repository of unsourced WP:NOR, even finding the right sources will be a challenge, given that there doesn't seem to be much to base this article in besides the school's own primary materials. GuardianH (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help me to improve the article if you wish. I think deletion is not the solution. The school is notable undoubtedly. Prince of Fairy Tale (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify There is potential for notability here. However, I do agree the article is a mess and needs to be reworked. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me to improve and restructure the article? The school is notable undoubtedly. Prince of Fairy Tale (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPlease note that Moulvibazar Government High School has produced two Finance Ministers of Bangladesh. That suggests some potential for notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cityline (ISP)

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

Delete as it fails WP:NCORP, and no reliable sources have been found LusikSnusik (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable part of the Runet history, meets WP:GNG. For example:

Chapter "9. Нескучный Провайдер «Ситилайн»" in the book "Ощупывая слона. Заметки по истории русского Интернета", 2004 by Sergey Kuznetsov
A section about Cityline in an article about Runet history in RFE/RL: https://www.svoboda.org/a/30204033.html#%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BD
Substantial coverage in contemporary media, for example, ru:Компания (журнал) issue from 21.06.99: https://www.compromat.ru/page_24318.htm

--PaulT2022 (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DennyB

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

Reference bombed with unreliable sources (except for tooXclusive which has no in-depth coverage). Subject fails the general notability guidelines and any other SNG. Also, note that, the image in the entry was uploaded on Commons just a day after the creation of this article. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found for this fellow. Not charted, no awards, not even streaming numbers to justify some sort of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Talking about notability this user has a Celebrity knowledge panel that is autogenerated or created by Google for notable musicians that has notable mentions everywhere on the internet as seen here. ^[1] My colleague above was talking about numbers with my investigations I found out that the subject has over 30,973 monthly listeners are enough reasons to be considered notable as seen here ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalageohio (talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalageohio is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet MUSICBIO Princess of Ara 11:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is featured on Resident Advisor artist platform which can not be paid for and resident advisor is a reliable source for Wikipedia citations plus subject is also featured on TooXclusive with over 30,000 Spotify monthly listeners user fit the notability status plus with my investigations, I found out that subject had copyright issues and lost some of his newspapers features. ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalageohio (talk • contribs) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking multiple participations in AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His being featured in Resident Advisor is not enough to make the case for notability. Most of the article's sources are primary, or otherwise give very little about Abuchi outside of a soapbox of his music. GuardianH (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with over 30,000 Spotify monthly listeners I feel that he meets the criteria for notability and since I saw that he lost some of his press releases due to some copyright issues the article should be considered a stub.Digitalageohio (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitalageohio You've voted three times in an attempt to keep this article. You shouldn't keep labeling the replies Keep and instead respond with a Reply to avoid any further confusion. GuardianH (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking multiple participations in AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ganesha as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Om Gan Ganapataye Namo Namah

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

I've looked for sources and there are many audio/video renditions of this devotional song and some translated versions of the lyrics. Unable to find WP:GNG-level sources. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Hinduism, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article clearly fails WP:GNG and may be a case of WP:SYNTH. IncompA 08:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are several hits for Aarti Kunj Bihari Ki using Google Books at https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Aarti+Kunj+Bihari+Ki%22+-wikipedia I cannot tell whether these represent criticism or discussion of he song or just a reprint of its lyrics. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And this Gopinathan, Prashant (2023-06-22). Elementales. Blue Rose Publishers. seems to be quoting the lyrics like a prayer in a novel. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If the prayer came before the song, perhaps the article should be about the prayer, if references can be found. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ganesha. This is a traditional mantra of Ganesha, perhaps performed by the artist, but not written by them. Skyerise (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent DiCalogero

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSBASIC as a former handball player. Let'srun (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Handball, Olympics, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Confessionals

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

Not notable. Vanity page for ancient web relic. Solemn1 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Social science, Internet, Websites, United States of America, and Ohio. — Karnataka ^talk 21:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found this 2021 ref https://thesophian.com/so-why-is-the-smith-confessional-still-popular-on-campus/. No strong opinion either way. - Indefensible (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this innocuous bit of dryer lint of an idea will spark some inferno of Wiki politics, but I question whether I should have listed this article for Proposed Deletion to begin with. Since Proposed Deletion results in a deletion if there are no objections, and there are no objections here, perhaps it should be deleted. • the solemn one (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's your call, • the solemn one, that's what some editors do, sometimes start with CSD, then PROD, then AFD. It's not always appropriate but it happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that, since the article has now been nominated at AFD, it can't be listed for PROD? • the solemn one (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, if an article has been sent to AFD, it can't be PROD'd later because PRODs are for "uncontroversial deletions". A deletion that goes through an AFD deletion discussion is not consider uncontroversial because it requires the participation of editors, the examination of sources, often debate among editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Handball at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads. Star Mississippi 02:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Van Os

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and doesn't meet any other GNG. I could only find the subject highlighted in some press releases announcing his joining Raymond James about a decade ago. Let'srun (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Handball, Olympics, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Handball at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads. I can find no significant coverage in a search of newspaper archives and online sources. The above squad list should be a good redirect target as an ATD.

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!} 05:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TAPCO (mail order company)

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

Contested PROD. Articles of this vintage deserve discussion in my view. I agree with the PROD reason: "No evidence it meets N:ORG. Redirect to Remington Arms isn't helpful to the reader as it isn't mentioned, and a mention wouldn't be DUE" given by Star Mississippi but not that mechanism. I obviously invite them to comment here should they wish. I have copied and pasted the PROD here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Firearms, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PRODder comment/delete (since I'm not sure how best to format this input given the conversion of my PROD): thanks Timtrent for saving me the step of the nomination. No issue with your contesting the PROD either, of course. My research found lots of forums discussing TAPCO's parts and what had happened to the company, but nothing even approaching N:ORG as it was a small company that appeared to deal mostly in B2B sales. It was active recently enough that coverage in trade publications should be accessible online, but a BEFORE found none. Should the relaunch come to fruition, an article could be created. I don't think draft space is viable as it hasn't launched and is therefore likely more than six months from notability. Star Mississippi 17:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot locate any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Hardly any sources even mention the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archievenblad

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

This journal is not indexed in any bibliographic database (see here), so it doesn't meet WP:NJournals. In the current version, 6 sources are listed:

1/ Not accessible;

2/ Advertisement for ads in the journal, does not contribute to notability.

3/ Library catalog entry. Besides the fact that library catalogs are notoriously prone to erroneous or outdated info, this does not contribute to notability.

4/ In passing mention to one of the progenitor journals, the "Nederlandse Archievenblad" (sic, typo of "Nederlandsch Archievenblad"?), does not contribute to notability.

5/ Cannot find a mention of this journal in this book, it does reference the (unrelated) "Antwerpsch Archievenblad". Does not contribute to notability.

6/ Probably a copyvio, for which academia.edu is notorious (so we shouldn't link to it). The "jaarboek" is financed by the "Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen Nederland", the publisher of the journal and is therefore not independent.

Therefore, with the possible exception of reference 1, there are no sources indicating notability. One source is not enough, so WP:GNG is not met either. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Netherlands. Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps an article about nl:Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen in Nederland (Royal Association of Archivists in the Netherlands), the association that publishes the journal, could be created, based on the existing Dutch Wikipedia article and with a paragraph or two about the journal. A quick Google search https://www.google.com/search?q=Royal+Association+of+Archivists+in+the+Netherlands suggests that the association is probably notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since NN per se. No objection that someone would rework this as Eastmain suggests. gidonb (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS #3 (sourced historical importance). The sources in the article as nominated are not great: 1-5 do not appear to give reliable in-depth independent coverage, and 6 focuses on an incident triggered by a publication in the journal but is otherwise not really about the journal. But there appears to be in-depth coverage of this journal in The American Archivist and regular reviews of its content in Gazette des archives [17] [18] [19], I think maybe enough together with the existing footnote 6. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG based on the sources provided by @David Eppstein:. I am assuming Nederlandsch Archievenblad is the forerunner of this journal under discussion. I agree this journal is covered in the sources provided. I added the Official website to the external links (not that this matters in a deletion discussion). I think I will try to add info to the infobox. I know, I get to have all the fun here! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WorldCat this is carried by 52 libraries, including several U.S. libraries, such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton; and one in the U.K.; more in the Netherlands; one in Sweden, and one in South Africa. I am guessing there are about 40 libraries in the Netherlands that are listed here. I believe the late great DGG would consider these library subscriptions to be a factor contributing to this journal's notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and given the national and international influence of this Dutch journal of archival science over its 130+ year history. "Best" English-language sources thus far include The American Archivist journal article highlighted by David Eppstein, as well as the 2003 introduction to The Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives (called the "bible of modern archivists"), both of which have now been added to the article. (Also wanted to point out that the Acta Historiae Neerlandica actually does mention the correct Archievenblad but that it is mentioned and cited repeatedly as Nederlandse Archievenblad.) As others have said, there appear to be numerous other sources in other languages including Dutch and French and Italian and probably German. Fully acknowledge that this article could be improved further by tracking down additional sources with the help of librarians/library scientists/historians, but this is not sufficient reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons given by Steve Quinn and Cielquiparle. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Olympic female artistic gymnasts for Great Britain. Star Mississippi 02:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Raistrick-Carter

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

Does not have the significant coverage to meet the GNG nor WP:NGYMNAST. All I could find is this - [[20]] Let'srun (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, and England. Let'srun (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Olympedia piece is decent. I would expect there to be further coverage available for this multi-time Olympian from an English-speaking country. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the usual snippets in contemporary sports reports, there's a little bit of significant coverage: marriage report, comeback in 1963. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Olympic female artistic gymnasts for Great Britain Coverage in databases is not considered sufficient to show WP notability. In 1952 she finished 131st out of 134 in the women's all around and in 1960 she finished 110th out of 124. Since Olympic participation is no longer enough to show notability, we need more coverage. Failing to break the top 100 is not enough. Papaursa (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izzat (honour)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Izzat (honour)

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

The citations included in the article use the word izzat only to tell the word for 'honour' in indian languages.Is this article really needed when one for 'honour' already exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by भारत्पराक्रमि (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article describes a culturally specific concept and is well sourced and coherent. Mccapra (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article discusses honour specifically in a South Asian context so it is notable in its own right. There are far too many bytes in this article to merge to the Honour article. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article discusses "honor" which is a culture of North India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. EngrShakamal (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourced, coherent, informative. There is nothing here to warrant a deletion at all. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Egor Shuppe

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

Lack of Reliable References together with promotional tone and absence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. LusikSnusik (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Russia, and United Kingdom. Spideroe^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on good faith - This appears to be a literal translation from Wikipedia Russia and Wikipedia Egyptian Arabic. Not sure how the nominator knows if the references are reliable or not, since half of them are in one or both of those languages. — Maile (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the references are adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, created by block-evading sock (non-admin closure)‎. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaboro (rapper)

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

I can't find any sources that have significant coverage on this subject. During a WP:BEFORE the best I could find was an around 175 word announcement here about their newest release. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in Swedish media, not mentioned in Svensk gangsterrap. The only articles I could find were published by Dopest.se Draken Bowser (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to have any coverage and likely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Darron4 (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted it as it's blatant block evasion of User:Dealer07. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Furman Paladins. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene E. Stone III Stadium (Greenville, South Carolina)

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

Non-notable college soccer stadium. No references, one link to the stadium's page on the University's site. Does not seem to meet WP:RS or WP:N. glman (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. glman (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found in any independent source. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Furman Paladins as possible search term. Giant Snowman 13:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Furman Paladins, as the subject does not meet the GNG for a standalone article User:Let'srun 02:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect However it should be redirected to Furman University and not Furman Paladins, as the stadium belongs to the university and can be multi-purpose if need be. Govvy (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Avila

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

Doesn't meet the notability guideline; WP:GNG. Most of the sources used in this article are primary, with a direct connection to the subject. It was created by a WP:SPA back in 2006, and seems to have slipped through the cracks of review. It reads like a promotional article to an obscure financier, which is easily confused with the notable lawyer of the same name — Joaquin Avila (lawyer). GuardianH (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty found for the lawyer, nothing for this fellow. It appears he's no longer with Carlyle either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete existing sources are primary or just mentions and do not contribute to notability.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably need to review the articles of this author since it seems the purpose is to just advertise Yale alumni and staff. - Imcdc Contact 05:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Guts (Olivia Rodrigo album). ✗plicit 14:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get Him Back!

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

Too soon for this to have a separate page per WP:Notability (music)#Songs (WP:NSONGS). The only credible sources that discuss the track at all just give minor mentions. It's unlikely to obtain more detailed coverage before the parent album Guts is released next month. Until this is covered beyond a cumulative paragraph in something that isn't just an album review or artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary, the page isn't worthy of being kept. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify: Is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Lack of independent significant coverage to have a standalone mainspace article now. User:Let'srun 13:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ for the time being as this is far too soon and we don't even know if it's getting a single release yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to redirect to the album page as I didn't see the existing draft mentioned below. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose draftifying - A draft for this article already exists and doing that will unnecessarily waste community time. I was going to be a keep vote, obviously, but if consensus strongly leans towards it then I'd rather deal with the redirect to Guts until the likely release date of August 25.--N Ø 16:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I didn't know of the pre-existing draft, that release date only appears to be speculation at the moment. Let's take it with a grain of salt until official confirmation comes along. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm switching to keep per a very reliable ATRL insider (BlackoutZone) confirming "Get Him Back!" is the single being released on August 25. I know it's not the most ideal thing to back up my claim but I can vouch for his reliability and I am just trying to save everyone some time. Since the article is extremely likely "to grow beyond [a] stub" within 11 days I'm considering an exception per WP:NSONGS. There is no reason to inconvenience the 1000s of people viewing the page daily.--N Ø 09:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ATRL is an untrustworthy forum and thus shouldn't be taken at face value for claims like this. You definitely would need something much stronger than any "insider" who posts things there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlackoutZone is reliable and announced songs like "Your Power" by Billie Eilish before their release was confirmed anywhere else. The song is definitely coming on August 25. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting citing him in the article but just using him in the context of my stand on this deletion nomination. That's all from me. Thanks.--N Ø 11:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether BlackoutZone has previously been right on things or can be trusted, that doesn't compensate for how there so far still aren't any good references discussing the track beyond a cumulative paragraph. To keep the page before those come along would be jumping the gun. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a keep vote from me as previously noted.--N Ø 12:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guts (Olivia Rodrigo album) until we have an idea what's going on. Nate • (chatter) 18:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the coup de main source in the article appears to be the only one out there at the moment that helps with establishing the song's notability - and even then the content is predicated upon speculation . ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 04:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of mainstream reliable sources confirming future notability, redirect to Guts (Olivia Rodrigo album) per WP:CRYSTALBALL until independent notability is demonstrable. Heartfox (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I would probably say to keep on this, I will save everyone from hearing my long rants about the silliness of NSONG because this is not the place. However, if you're going to do anything with this article, just WP:BLAR. Do not let it languish in draftspace and there is no need to let the author's work go to waste by deleting when it will become notable in a week or two. ULPS (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guts (Olivia Rodrigo album) until an independent release and/or further notability has been confirmed by reliable sources. Unreleased material shouldn't automatically become notable just because the parent album/artist is notable. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This is a very confusing discussion. Much of it centers on discussing the merits or problems with the article subject (which isn't relevant here or on the article Talk page) and there are three conflicting source analysis which might have all been done by the same editor (in the future please include your username at the top of the table). But overall, I see that there are at least a couple sources establishing notability and a general sentiment to Keep this article and to continue to clean it up. For editors who are fans of this site or who dislike it, please take that discussion off Wikipedia and to a review site or the blogosphere...it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient outside sources Belle Fast (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Belle Fast (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In reading the prior comments, it seems like the two primary arguments for deletion are 1) the page is not written to Wikipedia standards and 2) WikiTree itself does not live up to the standards of some individuals. I don't believe either should be grounds for deletion. Poorly written profiles should be rew-ritten and a company profile should not be deleted based on the complaints of disgruntled customers.

WikiTree has more than one million registered users and it is quicky becoming a major player in the genealogical community. Family Tree Magazine recently declared it one of the 100 best genealogy websites of 2023. These factors alone should qualify it for a Wikipedia profile.

Keep the page, fix it up so that it meets Wikipedia standards, and let the disgruntled members take their criticisms to Yelp! DMRand (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that of the "more than one million registered users," only 232,460 have signed the Honor Code as of just now (https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Badges&b=genealogist) and thus are fully enabled to edit profiles? And that management's own estimate is that only a few thousand are currently active contributors (https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/351001/how-many-genealogists-have-contributed-to-wikitree?show=351276#c351276)? 2600:1010:B181:CD66:45D3:2A9D:92DC:EC52 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and SALT~~ per first AfD, page serves no use, very little if any reliable second source coverage, seems to fail WP:GNG. Bunch of primary/self cites on the page now. May serve as a magnet for various WP:PROMO and WP:SOAP activities for and against the site but there is little meat here. SALT against creation for either positive or negative material and edit warring over that. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 02:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) I am striking my !vote because I had a negative reaction to this article's bickering on the talk page and the apparent behavior of editors. Also there have been efforts to improve the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for a prompt and balanced response Belle Fast (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That previous AfD nomination and subsequent deletion are not relevant to the current situation. Apparently the earlier AfD was for an article about a different entity named "WikiTree." It appears from the Wayback Machine that the site called WikiTree in 2005 and 2006 had the same domain owner, but that site apparently was taken down. The WikiTree.com site covered by the current article asserts (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:About_WikiTree) that the site opened in 2008. Orlady (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orlady: Thanks for looking into that. If it was a genealogy site (which archive.org shows) with the same domain owner, it does seem relevant to this discussion, no? Their first party assertions about the start date don't hold a lot of weight. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a website, not a domain name. I haven't determined what the contents were of the article that was deleted 17 years ago, but archive.org images of wikitree.com back in 2005 (https://web.archive.org/web/20050209002555/http://www.wikitree.com/) and 2006 (https://web.archive.org/web/20061129183230/http://www.wikitree.com/) look more like a parked domain than they do a website. I can't see how the deletion of an article about whatever existed in 2006 should prejudice all future decisions about articles of the same name.

The current "WikiTree" article was created in 2014, 8 years after the deletion of the previous article. On the Internet, 8 years is like a lifetime. Orlady (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I have reviewed the history of the deleted article (which in fact was deleted several times between 2006 and 2008). The subject was not Wikitree.com, but rather was Wikitree.org, which apparently belonged to a man named Tomáš J. Fülöpp (not the current owner of wikitree.com). From archive.org, it appears that at some point the owner of Wikitree.com acquired the wikitree.org domain and redirected it to wikitree.com. Orlady (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are relevant scholarly articles that have utilized data provided by WikiTree. Notably, the research papers titled 'Quantitative Analysis of Genealogy Using Digitised Family Trees' and 'Data Mining of Online Genealogy Datasets for Revealing Lifespan Patterns in Human Population' have relied on the data offered by WikiTree. These references demonstrate the value and importance of WikiTree as a resource for researchers and academics in the field of genealogy and population studies. While the absence of some outside sources may be a valid concern, it is crucial to recognize that Wikipedia itself is an ever-evolving platform, and the absence of cited external sources at a particular moment does not necessarily warrant deletion. As a community-driven encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to provide comprehensive coverage of notable subjects, and WikiTree undoubtedly falls within that category. 2601:2C5:4700:310:3A14:457E:FCB5:7AE2 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the first of these learned papers, I quote: “The data we use were provided by WikiTree, a free, collaborative worldwide family tree project created by a community of amateur genealogists. Data are available on 6.67 million people in over 160 countries (but mainly the US, UK, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and Holland) going as far back as the 1st century …... Data were validated by WikiTree using their in-house procedures which include checking source materials and by making individuals' profiles editable only by a limited list of users, and we provided additional validation by comparing lifespans in the data with those reported by third party sources.”^[4]

The three authors betray a considerable degree of naivety. WikiTree members are indeed amateurs and most of their work shows it. Fiction plays a strong part in many of their trees, hence the ludicrous claim of descents from the 1st century. An example is the profile for “Tiberius Claudius Caesar Britannicus Born before 12 Feb 41 in Rome, Italy Son of father unknown and Valeria Messalina Brother of Claudia Octavia Died 11 Feb 55 after age 13 in Rome, Italy”^[5] The only source cited for this rather distant ancestor is Wikipedia!

As for the unbelievable claim that data for 6.67 million people was validated by WikiTree, one has only to look at random cases from the past twenty centuries or even just the last couple of centuries to find endless examples of people with no credible source at all. The whole set-up is flawed and shoddy. Restricting editing powers to certfied users may limit the amount of fake info being added, but will they ever be able to clean up millions of valueless profles already there?

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that a survey like this can whitewash WikiTree and do not think it should count against deletion. Belle Fast (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2601:2C5:4700:310:3A14:457E:FCB5:7AE2, it seems you might have forgotten to log in before commenting. Would you mind saying whether you have any connection to PureRedneck, or any relationship to WikiTree? Thanks, MundoMango (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There doesn't appear to be even an attempt by the nominator to address the reliable source coverage already used in the article? Difficult to claim non-notability when there's no discussion of existing sourcing in relation to said notability. I've done a brief search and found several more usable sources as well.

Patton-Imani, Sandra (2018). "Legitimacy and the Transfer of Children: Adoption, Belonging, and Online Genealogy". Genealogy. 2 (4): 37. doi:10.3390/genealogy2040037. Retrieved August 5, 2023.
Beidler, James M. (June 24, 2012). "Roots and Branches: New genealogical mantra - 'Collaboration'". Lebanon Daily News. Retrieved August 5, 2023.
McGyver, Diane (November 13, 2012). "What's a WikiTree?". Kings County Record. Retrieved August 5, 2023.

And it looks like this stemmed from an ANI thread about an editor who was behaving inappropriately? But that has nothing to do with the notability of this article and subject. Also, based off of the talk page of this article, there just seems to be several users with a personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue with the article subject. Silver seren^C 18:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources have been added since this was nominated I think. Most of the cites on this page seemed to be to Wikitree itself, genealogy blogs, genealogy sites that on inspection could probably not be called WP:RS, etc. My google search (which perhaps was not exhaustive) found very little mention that wasn't fluff. If this site were getting substantial coverage I would've expected more than a few local news reports (for a national site?) and some genealogy blogs. I'll reconsider my !vote if I see significant in depth coverage. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latter two sources I gave above aren't local news reports, but syndicated articles that were in a ton of papers nationally. I just picked one of those papers to use, but they are very much not local content. Silver seren^C 05:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers are paywalled for me, did you get them through The Wikipedia Library? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's the primary resource I use. Silver seren^C 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first item is a very interesting and illuminating piece of academic research, for which the author found WikiTree a great help. That is however one individual's case, hardly enough on its own to establish notability for the whole site? As for the cited newspaper mentions, which date from over 11 years ago, are they anything more than PR puff? Belle Fast (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And since it has been suggested that I personally “do not like” WikiTree, that may be true but I will not demur at an article which cites adequate outside sources instead of being self-referential and includes critical comment as well as laudatory. Belle Fast (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no, Belle Fast did not to my recollection or knowledge make this because of an ANI report, but rather because of a dispute resolution request which I found confusing and malformed, and in my response to which I suggested that someone could nominate the article for deletion if they wanted, which I believe I had seen discussed on the article's talk page already. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. While WikiTree does have many excellent pages which show links to reliable online sources, scans of proof documents, relevant images, and well-written biographies, these cannot outweigh the vast accumulation of user-contributed dross which, to my mind, renders the site as a whole (unless its supporters can prove otherwise) non-notable. Belle Fast (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Belle Fast, I believe your !vote is already counted as the proponent. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I attempt to survey them here, to address the deficiency noted by Silver seren. As of the latest edit (5 August 2023 05:50 UTC) the article has 32 citations, of which 14 link to WikiTree.com content and seven are user review sites or favorable blog posts. Reference #20 (as numbered in the current version) is the website for the 2015 Global Family Reunion event, which mentioned WikiTree briefly as a “partner.” Of the two list entries, GenealogyInTime's 2016 “Top 100” chart (#6) did not describe its rating criteria, and Similarweb (#7) rated WikiTree eighth most visited, with no text description.

The ISOGG wiki entry (#31) describes DNA-related features using information obtainable on WikiTree.com, with no in-depth evaluation. The entry cites WikiTree.com, blog posts, and Wikipedia.

Five citations are media reports. The Daily Beast article (#2) is a report about the 2015 Global Family Reunion event, giving only brief mention to WikiTree. The New York Times (#8) published a general overview article about online genealogy sites. It mentions WikiTree in two paragraphs, presenting basic information available at WikiTree's Home and About pages. USA Today (#10) provided a similar summary of WikiTree-provided information. Familytree magazine (#29) offered one paragraph of information, again gleaned from WikiTree.com. None of these articles contains anything resembling in-depth coverage. The fifth media article, from the Lebanon Daily News (#11, also mentioned by Silver seren), is paywall protected from both my home computer and those at my local public library.

The remaining two sources (#1, #17) are academic journal articles having two authors (Fire and Elovici) in common. The first, quoted above by Belle Fast, was not a peer-reviewed publication. The second was peer reviewed, but the paywall only shows the abstract. The abstract describes “a large online genealogy dataset with over a million profiles and over 9 million connections, all of which were collected from the WikiTree website.” This language, from two of the same authors, suggests that both papers suffer from the same excess of credulity. I think it worth noting that WikiTree provides data to researchers, gratis.

In my opinion, the above sources (with the possible exception of the unviewable #11) fail to establish notability. If better sources do exist, the article's contributors have not been able to find them with nine years of effort. Moreover, the lack of independent, in-depth, balanced, coverage makes it unlikely the article can achieve NPOV. It seems that reliable sources of information critical of WikiTree are vanishingly rare. MundoMango (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management).[reply]

Found LDN (#11) on ProQuest [21], here's the relevant text:

"One outfit that is marching into this breach is WikiTree.

With the slogan "Growing the World's Family Tree," this free system, as its name implies, uses the same manner of collaboration that Wikipedia has used to build that online encyclopedia into one of the marvels of the Internet.

On WikiTree, participants are able to choose their preferred levels of privacy and collaboration with other genealogists. Profiles of living people can be kept completely closed or shared with only the users that a participant selects.

The merging of the profiles of presumed common ancestors are handled by each user on a case-by-case basis.

"Although broad-based collaboration is challenging we believe the benefits we get as researchers and the legacy we're leaving behind make the effort well worth it," according to WikiTree's brochure.

WikiTree is found at WikiTree.com."

Partial GNG-point, I'd say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, with fifteen new citations added today as of 20:35 UTC:

One (#29) duplicates a previously cited blog post (#34 now, was #19).
Five are posts in the WikiTree members-only G2G discussion forum (read-only for non-members).
Two are YouTube videos produced by members on behalf of WikiTree.
Wikis for Dummies (#3) has incorrect publication information. Googlebooks preview pages show copyright 2007, cited text describes “wikitree.org” as “in its infancy.”
CNN (#4) is an overview of online genealogy, mentioning WikiTree twice as a site that includes social networking features.
The Oklahoman (#6) is titled incorrectly. The actual item was “What is WikiTree?” a public service announcement of an upcoming promotional talk by a member.
Guardian (#7) article about WikiAnswers; WP:INHERITWEB.
Family Tree Magazine (#9) links to podcast Ep. 56, January 2013, not 2023, promotional interview with the owner.
#11 is a blog post promotional interview with the owner.
Kennett and Pomery, 2011 (#12) has a brief description of WikiTree, more objective than most but outdated.

Plus eleven bulleted items that I didn't look at. MundoMango (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management)[reply]

Keep. What about newspaper coverage in several US states to prove notability? --Flominator (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pick a couple of GNG-good ones? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with any wiki that allows edits from a community of users, there will be content that needs further examination and work to bring it up to standard. Example profiles following a set of style rules and standards: Dewsbury-65, Calvert-613. The work done by volunteer contributors on WikiTree has been cited as a source in books, magazines, and newspaper articles. Example: Wanner, Dick (16 Jul 2022). "Historic Black Inventor Made Grain Harvest Faster, Safer for Famers". Lancaster Farming. Vol. 67, no. 42. Ephrata, Pennsylvania: LNP Media Group. p. B19. Retrieved 7 August 2023. - it is referring to Ruth-893 Azurerae (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but "cited as a source" doesn't matter. WP:GNG-good coverage does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikitree, like Geni and Familysearch is a work in progress. Its userbase is constantly striving to make the website the best it can be and even now sources are being added which verify its notability. It has been accredited by various well-known genealogists. I know that seems like a feather in the site's cap. However, it should count for something as users of that site worked hard on their family trees. To list them all would take some time. Videos, however, can be found on the site's Youtube channel.

Edits have already been made to the page, which, to be honest has improved its flow considerably. It has stopped being less like an advertisement and more like what it should be--A page outlining the functions of the website, its history, and its importance to the genealogical community. More changes are underway and more sources have been added by contributors to support its notability. Cferra (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://g.co/kgs/aP2rQJ
^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/4CpA6KhbohKW7a1huUT7oU
^ https://ra.co/dj/dennyb/biography
^ Quantitative Analysis of Genealogy Using Digitised Family Trees Michael Fire, Thomas Chesney & Yuval Elovici September 2, 2014 https://archive.org/details/arxiv-1408.5571 retrieved 4 August 2023
^ "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Brittanicus (Bef.0041-0055) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not all !votes are currently valid, but amongst those that are, it's not currently clear enough to call
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not the easiest call, but I think this is a case where footnotes exist but they don't add up to notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reality is, while this page definitely needs to be improved on, there is enough outside coverage in my opinion to warrant the page's existence. PunkAndromeda (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From a recent review of the current page version, there appears to be more than adequate references to outside sources that discuss everything from site functionality to the market share of the genealogy websites to data research done utilizing the site and professional papers using profile information found on WikiTree. A scan of similar sites (Ancestry, MyHeritage, Geni, FamilySearch, etc.) seems to reveal similar pages with a similar style of presentation, some with essentially the same external coverage, so this one does not seem any more or less suitable, and while we're not comparing these as a whole, it seems awkward to cite the removal of what appears to be a recognized site in the genealogical market without any indication of concern about the others. Dsfulker (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WikiTree is a well-recognised genealogical site. The page has now been improved, with better sourcing, but in any event the way to address sourcing concerns is to make sourcing better. While some comments can be found on the web about the accuracy of some information on WikiTree, the same applies to other genealogical sites for which there are Wikipedia articles, like Familysearch, and this is not a reason to delete the page. The quality of sourcing is not dissimilar to that in articles for sites like Familysearch, and so is the presentation. Mfcayley (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a lot of primary refs, and sections like User privacy seems way too detailed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, I feel a bit lost here: This is my first deletion discussion in en.wp, after working over decades at de.wp. There deletion requests were often about proving notability or fulfillment of relevance criteria. When describing (and not advertising, which we should clearly avoid because of NPOV) a website, it's obvious that you will often use the website as source. I mean, who could describe features better, than the site itself? This is of course not the case when writing about public reception, criticism, comparison to others etc. When looking at WeRelate, geni.com and Rodovid, the composition of sources is roughly the same, I would say. I can understand, if you declare passages of the article to much advertising, too detailed, not neutral etc., I can't grasp, how exactly more "non-primary sources" would look like for this type of article. Can you please explain? --Flominator (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The website knows what it want to say about itself, but on en-WP, that is of limited interest, per WP:ABOUTSELF. If we're going WP:OTHERCONTENT, there are also websites like Wikipediocracy, Palmer Report and Dogsbite.org. However, if we're looking for role-models, it's probably better to look at GA/FA articles, WP has a lot of iffy content, and it's not unlikely many articles on websites (or anything, really) are significantly edited by "fans", and if the article is relatively unnoticed, that will show (there's the opposite too, of course [22]). Which is of course not necessarily bad, fans tend to know stuff, but they also tend to edit from the position that the whatever is great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Violette Martin (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) (deleted Violette Martin (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I am biased, as I am a volunteer leader on WikiTree. The site was a major focus of my lightning talk at WikiConference North America 2020, and I contributed to the 2016 property proposal discussion for the (accepted) property on Wikidata that provides links to the site.
As others have stated, the presence of poor research on a significant portion of the 33 million ancestor profiles is not an indicator of notability, although it certainly must influence Wikipedia editors who diligently delete any source citations referencing the site. FamilySearch Family Tree, Geni.com, Ancestry member trees, and any sites with user-generated genealogy information are bound to be riddled with errors. It's why the collaborative global trees are peer-reviewed and contentious profiles are monitored and curated. KarenJoyce (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“.... collaborative global trees are peer-reviewed and contentious profiles are monitored and curated ….” Really? How frequently can a database with millions of names be checked? And who does the checking? If by other amateurs, how are they better equipped to judge? A WikiTree admin, whose acts are above challenge, officially changed the name of an English ancestor from James to Jacobus, unaware that the baptismal register on which she relied was in Latin. Please do not pretend that WikiTree, despite some excellent material, is overall a quality product. Which is why a Wikipedia article which conceals its faults and sings only its praises is not neutral. Belle Fast (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a WikiTree member, so I should not be counted as "voting" here, but I do want to comment. The current WikiTree article is severely bloated, and it has become more bloated during the course of this AfD discussion. There is far too much nonencyclopedic content, much of which is sourced only to the WikiTree website and thus contributes to the perception that the article is almost entirely based on content from the article's subject. If the article is kept, editing of the article to resolve the bloat problem would also address the heavy reliance on "self"-reported content. That does not mean that all "self"-reported content must go away. In my experience editing Wikipedia content about entities such as companies and educational institutions, I have seen that it is seldom possible to adequately document these entities without including some content that is sourced only to the subject of the article, and this is also the case for WikiTree (as a privately held company that has never made business headlines for events like change of ownership, lay-offs, or scandal). It is hardly surprising that there are no independently authored full-length books or articles providing in-depth coverage of WikiTree, but I think the descriptive content about WikiTree that has appeared in articles about genealogy websites in reputable newspapers (such as The New York Times in 2011), in Family Tree magazine (https://familytreemagazine.com/uncategorized/best-social-media-websites-2014/), and in books like "DNA and Social Networking: A Guide to Genealogy in the Twenty-First Century" (and probably some other sources cited in the article) should be sufficient to establish notability of a website. Additionally, I think the very recent web traffic data from SimilarWeb (8th in website traffic among Genealogy&History websites, behind Ancestry.com, FamilySearch, MyHeritage, Geneanet, and 23andMe, but ahead of widely known sites including Findmypast, FamilyTreeDNA, and Rootsweb) and the 2016 "popularity" ranking of 15th (basis not reported) by GenealogyInTime Magazine indicate the importance of WikiTree within the context of genealogy websites. And I am aware of blog posts by unaffiliated professional genealogists that may (if cited selectively) help to further document the impact of WikiTree. Orlady (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Note: Much of the "bloat" I referred to in the above comment has now been addressed, thanks to Drmies and others. Orlady (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on examining the content of the media sources cited (my vote, above), "the descriptive content about WikiTree that has appeared in articles about genealogy websites in reputable newspapers ... and in books" does not (in my opinion) rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. Superficial coverage is no less so for appearing in reputable publications, or in lesser publications no matter how often repeated. I believe "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail" should go well beyond repeating information obtained from the website or its promotional material, and would include such questions as: How many of the one million members have been inactive for a year or more? How many members make more than a few contributions in a typical month? How many of the 35 million profiles are duplicates, fabrications, or completely unsupported by verifiable sources? And so on. Such coverage, if it exists, would go far to support claims of notability; included in the article, it would add greatly to NPOV. MundoMango (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management).[reply]
Slightly off-topic, but you reminded me of Numbeo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have barely adequate secondary references of the required independence and reliability. Edison (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering about outside canvassing given that we have about 5 keep votes from editors with 100 or less, most significantly less, contributions. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doug Weller: I was canvassed off-wiki by email on 11 August and waded into the fray with my Keep comment and flurry of editing in an attempt to find better sources. I later read about WP:STEALTH. KarenJoyce (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also found the helpful Template:Rfc notice and used that on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Genealogy. KarenJoyce (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Would you mind sharing details of this canvassing, ideally at WP:ANI? That really shouldn't be tolerated. Thanks :) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 08:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: seems endemic to everything that's been going on with this article. Hopefully the closer can sort through it. I'd probably go back and unstrike my "SALT" vote because if it's deleted I think the advocates of this commercial "Wiki" will just come back and make it again. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that WikiTree is clearly a wiki with no quotes required, as each page represents a person, living or dead, or a place, document, factory, etc. And it is promised to be free forever, although it is operated as a small (seriously small) business. I am not one of the single-digit number of paid staff team members, but clearly I should step back as I'm a user and fan. Perhaps the other fans, banned former users, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT folks should do the same? KarenJoyce (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you may be right about stepping back. Do you think that if everyone who has an opinion about the site recuses themselves the !vote will it be more balanced? I don't know where the line is on having a COI in that regard. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don‘t think there’s a clear line in the policies/guidelines, but I think it would be good for the discussion if some of the !votes here were refactored. With their agreement, of course. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the debate here centers on the quality of Wikitree itself rather on whether it meets the admissibility criteria. Agree with KarenJoyce. Violette Martin (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Violette. But if the quality of WikiTree's organisation and data is imperfect, shouldn't the Wikipedia article address this?

It is illuminating to read comments by the admittedly small sample of disappointed users at https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/wikitree.com The site's summary reads: “WikiTree has a rating of 1.87 stars from 15 reviews, indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied …. WikiTree ranks 54th among genealogy sites.” Belle Fast (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:RS have bothered to notice, this article can too. Citing sitejabber would be like citing Amazon reader reviews (as in heck no). However, since the site is usergenerated, imperfections is not that surprising, pretty much part of the package. To quote Jimmy Wales commenting on Wikipedia in August 2023: "It's pretty good in parts." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm working on a source assessment table to clear up this discussion a little. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 08:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Actualcpscm, if you feel up to it, you can look at the sources at Talk:WikiTree#This_was_under_"References"_for_some_reason too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the table for the sources currently in the article. There were two to which I did not have suitable access to fully determine their suitability. I'll take a look at the ones in the discussion here and at the link above now, thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 08:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Actualcpscm Thanks for working on this. On Roots and Branches, see my "Found LDN (#11) on ProQuest" comment above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On DNA and SN, see [23]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the arxiv pdf, I'm not sure this was reliably published somewhere, or if it is some sort of student paper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.google.it/books/edition/It_s_All_Relative/u0k8DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0		~		~ Partial
https://www.google.it/books/edition/Sharing_Your_Family_History_Online/u9MoEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=isbn:9781526780300&printsec=frontcover		~		✘ No
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.5571.pdf			Does not discuss WikiTree in detail, just uses it as a source of data. See WP:SIGCOV.	✘ No
https://www.thedailybeast.com/massive-genealogy-project-shows-we-are-familyliterally		WP:DAILYBEAST		✘ No
https://books.google.it/books?id=5VXgXlU7g-YC&pg=PA300&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false	? Reads a lot like an advertisement. WP:NCORP requires strict independence.		~ Hardly. Again, WP:SIGCOV requires that analysis can be extracted without WP:OR or WP:SYNTH This is a maybe.	? Unknown
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/10/living/real-simple-finding-your-roots/index.html				✘ No
https://eu.oklahoman.com/story/lifestyle/2022/11/16/oklahoma-city-metro-area-happenings-news-and-events/69622284007/	? Event announcement is likely not strictly independent.			✘ No
https://familytreemagazine.com/podcasts/episode56/	?		? Didn't check.	✘ No
https://lisalouisecooke.com/2023/03/22/what-is-wikitree/	Interview	Blog		✘ No
https://www.google.it/books/edition/DNA_and_Social_Networking/MEM7AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0	Presumably, although the author is an active user.		? I'll have to check	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20140923024330/http://wikitree.appappeal.com/		?	~ This "review" regurgitates marketing language and keywords without providing any substantial analysis or insight.	? Unknown
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1608820/wikitree-surpasses-35-million-profiles		~		✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1577271/1-000-000-members-passed-at-8-57-a-m-eastern-us		~		✘ No
http://www.genealogyintime.com/articles/top-100-genealogy-websites-of-2016-page02.html		?	List entry	✘ No
https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/hobbies-and-leisure/ancestry-and-genealogy/		?	List entry	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/feb/12/wiki-answers-wikia			Does not mention WikiTree	✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1848/have-you-signed-the-honor-code		~		✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:Honor_Code		~		✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/technology/personaltech/19basics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0			Passing mentions only	✘ No
https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/2015/06/24-degrees-separation/		Personal blog		✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Duplicates		~		✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/29385/did-you-see-that-you-can-now-export-gedcom-for-individual-tree		~		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150724120807/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2011-06-03-genealogy-web-tools_n.htm			~ Listicle entry. Doesn't provide any analysis.	~ Partial
Roots and Branches: New genealogical mantra - 'Collaboration' (https://www.proquest.com/docview/1021925089/7631C40EA5B24F09PQ/1?accountid=196403)			Doesn't provide analysis, reporting only basic facts about the project.	✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/365669/should-all-profiles-of-people-born-150-died-100-years-ago-open		~		✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/377813/that-profiles-people-who-were-born-years-died-years-must-open		~		✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:GEDMatch		~		✘ No
https://isogg.org/wiki/WikiTree		Appears to be WP:UGC		✘ No
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2700464			Only mentions WikiTree once as a source of their data.	✘ 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}}.

Here's the table for the sources at Talk:WikiTree#This_was_under_"References"_for_some_reason. I didn't analyse the last few, it's clear that there's a pattern here: they used WikiTree as a source and did not analyse it further, ergo no SIGCOV. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 09:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Analyzing Digital Discourse" book actually about "our" Wikitree? I don't have good access. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking..., although it looked like it to me. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 09:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that's something else. Table and !vote have been amended accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out!

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.google.it/books/edition/Analyzing_Digital_Discourse_and_Human_Be/9sSNCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0			This is about a different WikiTree, more commonly stylized Wiki Tree. Darn.	✘ No
https://www.irelandxo.com/ireland-xo/news/tracing-your-roots-dna		? Presumably yes.		✘ No
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.1507441.11				✘ No
https://books.google.it/books?id=IdWkEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false		? Presumably yes.		✘ No
https://www.lowcountryweekend.com/2023/04/11/international-african-american-museum-sets-spring-early-summer-programming/				✘ No
https://eu.pressconnects.com/story/news/connections/2018/03/26/genealogy-roots-ancestry-stories/376788002/		?		✘ No
https://www-euppublishing-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epub/10.3366/brw.2020.0346			Passing mention.	✘ No
https://www.cairn.info/revue-population-2020-2-page-391.htm			Passing mention.	✘ No
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2655175415/8BF23F813A0D4F7EPQ/1	Note that this is the same author as source 2 from the article.	Small magazine, but presumably notable; no reason to believe otherwise.		✔ Yes
Tovey, Helen. “Genealogy Gadgets & Apps for All Occasions!” Family Tree Magazine (02671131), June 2022, 32–35	?	?	? No access	? Unknown
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/88/article/722734/pdf			Uses WikiTree as a source	✘ No
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/17/article/627387			Uses WikiTree as source of data	✘ No
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/787987			No access, but completely implausible that this would have sigcov of WikiTree	✘ No
The judicial officers of the Transvaal High Court, 1877- 1881			No access, but implausible for SIGCOV, likely uses WikiTree as source	✘ No
https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-1c0438e6c0				✘ No
https://journals.co.za/doi/epdf/10.17159/sajs.2020/6363			Uses WikiTree as source	✘ No
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1910&context=sahs_review			Passing mention	✘ No
https://www.medichub.ro/reviste-de-specialitate/orl-ro/femei-celebre-in-stomatologie-secolele-xviii-xix-id-7667-cmsid-63			Uses WikiTree as source	✘ 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}}.

And here it is for the sources discussed at this AfD. My !vote is coming in soon. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 09:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, Kings County Record is an ordinary newspaper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's a newspaper of record, it's probably reliable. That gives us another GNG source. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 09:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2582803033/288919154B3E4D32PQ/1			✔ Yes
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1021925089/D4D14316374D4B25PQ/1		~ No substantial analysis.	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1151258320/288919154B3E4D32PQ/1	~~Anyone know anything about King's County Record?~~ Appears to be reliable.		✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/lancaster-farming/129612151/		Cites WikiTree as a source	✘ No
https://familytreemagazine.com/uncategorized/best-social-media-websites-2014/	?		✘ 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}}.

Weak Keep. This discussion is a mess, and I think a lot of participants got completely sidetracked. However, the standards of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are almost certainly met. ~~The three best sources here are 1, 2, 3.~~1 is about a different WikiTree. I think there's still enough here, but it's really borderline without that book. However, I think there is a very strong WP:NEXIST argument to be made. Clearly, WikiTree is used a source of data by a lot of reliably published academic papers, often without further explanation. To me, that indicates a certain renown within the academic field; if WikiTree were not considered reliable, it wouldn't be used to frequently in academic works. Renown does not establish notability, but it's a consequence of analysis (that we have not found yet). Someone, somewhere almost certainly analysed the reliability of WikiTree data for academic work. I find it hard to believe that it would be so widely used if that had never happened. That gives us 3 GNG sources, plus potentially some of the ones I don't have access to, plus a high likelihood that there is academic analysis of the reliability of WikiTree that we haven't found. That's enough for WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, in my opinion. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 09:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Edited 09:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this source re. GNG. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 09:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the NEXIST, I think there's an argument that such sources would have appeared by now, if they're out there (WP:MUSTBESOURCES which of course is an essay). I'm not confident it's "a lot", I have no good comparison. It can indicate a certain renown, or to some extent some academic sloppiness. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That‘s the thing, NEXIST and MUSTBESOURCES are somewhat contradictory. I want to assume that academic use of WikiTree is based on legitimate renown rather than sloppiness, but I‘m not naïve to the point of denying that sloppiness exists in academia. It seems that someone took the time to compile a large number of academic works that use WikiTree as a source, so it is weird that they found all that and no analysis. I‘ll take another look at the GNG sources we actually have. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there‘s still enough. We‘re back to WP:THREE with the Kings County Record piece. None of those sources are particularly convincing to me, but all of them technically fulfill the requirements. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actualcpscm, I can't find where anyone verified that the Kings County Record piece was a news report, rather than an event announcement or similar? Sorry if I missed it. MundoMango (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management)[reply]

If you meet the requirements, you can access it through the Wikipedia Library. It is a brief report on WikiTree, not an event announcement or press release. It's attributed to Diane Lynn Tibert McGyver (labelled a freelance writer), who doesn't seem to have a direct connection to WikiTree. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update on this assessment: There are currently 3 GNG sources (see table), as well as two partials (low depth of coverage). Still looks enough to me even without the NEXIST argument. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Legitimacy and the Transfer of Children, I would argue that WikiTree was simply a research tool, like the computer the author used. She mentions the WikiTree mission; signing up for an account; not being able to enter both an adoptive family and a biological family (without creating a separate identity for herself), and uses several paragraphs to describe the disappointment, concluding with "We are not fully part of either family, and thus, our sense of belonging is always contingent and negotiated"; later she mentions, but provides no detail about her experience (if any), with the "Adoption Angels." WikiTree was used mainly as an example of how genealogical websites work.

- (Full disclosure: I am a WikiTree excommunicant. I wouldn't presume to vote in this discussion.) 2600:1010:B121:DC53:50F:7866:448C:37DA (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 12:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GPT-5

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

This article is currently based on nothing but a trademark registration. GPT-5 has not been officially announced by OpenAI or reported on as anything beyond a rumor by reliable sources. Of course, GPT-5 is widely expected to be announced later (soon, even), but this topic is not yet ripe for an article. See Crystal for relevant guidelines. StereoFolic (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. StereoFolic (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON, although to be fair it probably will quickly become notable. JMWt (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that there is enough information in the article to justify an article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only information relating to GPT-5 is a patent application and Sam Altman denying rumors. There was a rumor from Siqi Chen, who falsely and perplexingly was described as "a research scientist at OpenAI," but I just removed this as it's wrong and more WP:Crystal. StereoFolic (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, improve and publish when more information is released and it becomes more relevant. The article seems too speculative as of right now. NotAGenious (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now as the article is premature. - Indefensible (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. The article is really only about a registered trademark. Could be useful soon, though, so not delete. Asparagusus (interaction) 18:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't the equivalent of Ming-Chi Kuo. Nate • (chatter) 18:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content is mostly reused from GPT-4, and per comments above. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON since the model was not released yet. By definition, there can be no reliable in-depth third-party coverage since the model is still being developed. All reported information can be only nearly verbatim regurgitation of authors' claims. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not allow the author to keep the draft then? It costs virtually nothing and prevents having to start over from scratch with a deletion. - Indefensible (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is deleted at the conclusion of this AfD, the article creator (or anyone who would like to work on it) is permitted to request for a draftspace WP:REFUND. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but why make them go through such a hassle? Just draftify it directly. - Indefensible (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to draftifying, but I think it needs a careful look before going back to mainspace given the major factual error I found earlier. StereoFolic (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Tausendpfund

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

Similar case to David Schittenhelm - only some routine stuff like [24], nothing of any depth. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued OCTA bus routes

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

No sources cited, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is helpful to those who are wondering about old bus routes. Without this page, you would have to attempt to procure a copy of an antique OCTA "bus book". Extraordinary1.0 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced bus fancruft. Wikipedia isn't a repository for every detail of a transport authority's historical service updates. It appears a list of current OCTA bus routes, doesn't exist, well.. at least after 2016. Ajf773 (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ajf773, The OCTA has rebranded since October 2015 but not in 2016 actually. It appears that the OC Bus is still remain under the name of OCTA as same don't get me wrong about that. The OCTA has not been changed to OC but everyone has 2 options to say the OCTA or OC Bus. Cool90630 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -No evidence of any notability, Fails WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTGUIDE and to some extent WP:NOTDIR. –Davey2010^Talk 16:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR, even an out of date or non-existent one... SN54129 14:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted per WP:U1‎. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Diego MTS former routes

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

No sources are cited, violation of WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into San Diego MTS bus system. Sounder Bruce 08:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced bus fancruft. Wikipedia isn't a repository for every detail of a transport authority's historical service updates. Ajf773 (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the page creator and sole major contributor has now blanked the page in good faith. I have thus marked it for speed deletion, g7. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Foothill Transit Bus Lines

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

Non-notable list, completely unreferenced, violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT. If there is any valuable content, it can be merged to parent article. I suggested PROD but the creator decided to drop an angry message on my talk page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. The author of the only significant content has asked for the page to be deleted after it was blanked. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Weak points of view on all sides lead me to close this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse (Anglican Network)

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

All the sources fail WP:ORGIND due to a lack of "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". Although news sources have printed basic announcements of the group's existence with quotes from involved people, none of these involve intellectually independent coverage as required for an organization to be considered notable. (t · c) buidhe 05:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, China, and United Kingdom. (t · c) buidhe 05:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ as sources from the central Church of England, Diocese of London and Church Times all equate to something more than not notable. These are all Church of England-administered or related sources, so the independence factor is in play. But when something reaches the Church Times—a fairly reliable source with a bit of editorial leeway and corporate separation—I start thinking notability exists. However, the independence aspect referenced in the nom is still relevant, so a weak keep it is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: Changing my !vote as I think the limited scope and inability for other editors doing their own digging to uncover much of anything else on the subject demonstrates that notability is very limited and likely not up to the GNG or any other meaningful metric. While a merge could work, I think a single-line reference in an article that isn't as broad as History of the Church of England would probably be preferable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I have found sources from other diocese outsides of London such as Bristol, Leeds and Norwich, which demonstrates the impact the Teahouse is having across the national Church. The Church Times is certainly independent and substantial, their Wiki pages has the following content in it:
  
  'Madeleine Davies says: "I think what’s really important about the Church Times is it's independent. We're not affiliated to any other organisation, so we're really free in what we can write." The editor, Paul Handley, says: “If the Church screws up, then we report it. If the Church does something fantastic, then we report it. We deliberately don’t have our own agenda.”'
  
  I have updated The Teahouse page to mention the reception and recognition it has also received from the U.K'.s largest Ecumenical (i.e. NON-Anglican) and independent news source, Premier Christianity. So those of the two largest independent Anglican and Non-Anglican news sources you can get in the U.K.
  
  Also added a link to where The Teahouse has led the BBC's national service, which is broadcast across every regional station in the U.K.
  
  In terms of Wider Society, I've input content related to The Teahouse being invited by the Western Front to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph every year to mark Remembrance Day, this is televised across the nation and high profile. And also input evidence of The Teahouse being recognised by His Majesty The King and The Archbishop of Canterbury.
  
  Although The Teahouse is small, it's diminutive size is it's USP, and the impact it has had on society would appear to be signifiant enough to warrant keeping. Chi-ymru (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ - changed !vote see below - whilst there are likely other news references such as 1, I'm doubting that any of these meet the criteria of both independent and substantial. From what I read, it is a network of less than a dozen ordained Anglican priests. Noted, barely, as being vaguely interesting that it exists. That's it. JMWt (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Teahouse website appears to now list 19 ordained priests. Still small in number, but the measure of significance in in the fact that The Teahouse represents "all" of the clergy of Chinese-heritage in the entire Church of England, or at least 99% of them. It appears that the news sources that picked up The Teahouse are interested, because of the very small numbers, because they are such an underrepresented group. That is what makes the network interesting, it's USP. Chi-ymru (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a paragraph or so into History of the Church of England § 1970–present or a similar section with a later date range. —siro χ o 09:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Delete, Merge, let's hear from other thoughtful editors what they think should happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found sources from other diocese outsides of London such as Bristol, Leeds and Norwich, which demonstrates the impact the Teahouse is having across the national Church. The Church Times is certainly independent and substantial, their Wiki pages has the following content in it:

'Madeleine Davies says: "I think what’s really important about the Church Times is it's independent. We're not affiliated to any other organisation, so we're really free in what we can write." The editor, Paul Handley, says: “If the Church screws up, then we report it. If the Church does something fantastic, then we report it. We deliberately don’t have our own agenda.”'

I have updated The Teahouse page to mention the reception and recognition it has also received from the U.K'.s largest Ecumenical (i.e. NON-Anglican) and independent news source, Premier Christianity. So those of the two largest independent Anglican and Non-Anglican news sources you can get in the U.K.

Also added a link to where The Teahouse has led the BBC's national service, which is broadcast across every regional station in the U.K.

In terms of Wider Society, I've input content related to The Teahouse being invited by the Western Front to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph every year to mark Remembrance Day, this is televised across the nation and high profile. And also input evidence of The Teahouse being recognised by His Majesty The King and The Archbishop of Canterbury.

Although The Teahouse is small, it's diminutive size is it's USP, and the impact it has had on society would appear to be signifiant enough to warrant keeping.

Chi-ymru (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, it is fair to point out that you started the page and made most of the substantive edits. JMWt (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the sources you discuss here;

Diocese outside of London are not relevant as they are not independent.

Church Times may be independent to some degree, but clearly they are discussing in detail Anglican topics for an Anglican audience.

Premier is an independent news source so this might be one out of all the sources that needs further thought and investigation.

The King is the titular head of the Church of England so in this capacity is not independent. Groups invited to lay wreaths are not normally considered a strong sign of notability here.

As I said, perhaps the Premier article is enough, I will review. JMWt (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view these are the three best sources on the page at present. 1 - Bristol Post. 2 - Premier 3 - Christian Today

Two of the three have named bylines and I believe they're all publications with proper editorial oversight. Although they appear to be based on PR, maybe this is enough. JMWt (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NORG criteria still require intellectual independence, even if there is a byline.

I also believe that this topic is already adequately covered in the existing article on its founder, Mark Nam. (t · c) buidhe 07:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I've changed my weak delete vote from above, but I'm attempting to focus further discussion onto the sources. JMWt (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - on reflection I have changed by !vote to keep but only barely. I think the sources are probably enough and that my own remaining reasons for !voting delete were WP:IDONTLIKEIT JMWt (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Valani

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

Beardo’s founder isn’t enough notable yet, too early. He’s not generally notable fails WP:GNG Autograph (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Autograph (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sources covering mostly about the Beardo, no in-depth coverage so far. Autograph (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG on his own - the sourcing is either list articles or about the company. SportingFlyer T·C 09:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Gurinov

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

Lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Although the article has a lot of detailed information, it doesn't reference independent reliable sources to back up these claims. Plus, very promotional tone as the article seems to describe Gurinov in a flattering light throughout. LusikSnusik (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Kpg jhp jm 09:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant#Subvariants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SARS-CoV-2 Eris variant

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

This belongs as another item in the list at SARS-CoV-2_Omicron_variant#Subvariants, no evidence of being any more notable at this time than any previously listed subvariant. While there is news coverage, it is similar to that provided to other Omicron subvariants at this time. EoRdE6^(Talk) 03:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^(Talk) 03:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant#Subvariants. This is Paul (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per This is Paul seems appropriate. - Indefensible (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and for ease of reading. Narky Blert (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Cleveland

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

This article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The content in it is already covered at Grover Cleveland#Marriage and children and Baby Ruth#Etymology. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination, the article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Furthermore, the info in the article is also covered on the Grover Cleveland page, as per the nom. Just because you were birthed by a president doesn't mean you deserve your own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IncompA (talk • contribs) 03:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New !vote below —siro χ o 19:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Redirect to Grover Cleveland § Marriage and children per WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:ATD-R —siro χ o 03:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This child was much more than just a child of a president. Please note "Her birth between Cleveland's two terms of office caused a national sensation. Interest in her continued even after her father's second presidential term was over.", and then her tragic death at a yound age threw many into mourning. Her life, as a topic, stands alone encyclopedically apart from her historical societal effect. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a prominent individual in two areas of interest, United States presidential children and namesakes of famous products. Baby Ruth was of considerable interest for years, and was a beloved and publicly popular personage who was greatly mourned at her death. This seems one of those cases where the passage of time applies ignorance of the era, an aspect of human nature which should not spill over into encyclopedic knowledge. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd suggest a new Family of Grover Cleveland page for this as well as Marion Cleveland, Esther Cleveland and Francis Cleveland. We don't even have articles on Malia Obama or Barron Trump. Being a "sensation" obviously is because she was "just a child of a president". Of couse people mourn when the president's young child dies, but a separate article is not necessarily needed to say that in a few sentences. The Snopes source indicates she was not actually the namesake of the famous product anyway. Reywas92^Talk 16:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That new article sounds like a good idea, I would support such a merge as well. —siro χ o 21:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A family page could be written without removing the pages, such as this one and those which easily make GNC. If you'd like a page on Malia Obama please write it (Barron Trump is not old enough for a stand-alone page as yet) but let's not throw out Baby Ruth with the bathwater. Plus, if Wikipedia had been invented in 1911 instead of 2001, a page on Ruth Cleveland would have been posted and easily kept, so this seems a case of time-bias. Encyclopedia's should have long memories and not let time erode. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ANYBIO. It's a sad story, but the dearth of sources reflects the fact that 12 year old children rarely achieve enough to garner the kind of coverage we require. Not just in newspaper coverage of the time but in subsequent, in-depth scholarship. SN54129 13:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Delete, Keep, Redirect, Merge, there is no consensus here. And remember, an article has to exist before an article can be Merged into it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the candy bar with the same name, that seems to be what her "notability" hangs on. She didn't accomplish much notability-wise, but was seemingly the reason the candy bar was named, in a not-so-obvious attempt to cash in on the baseball player's name. Had they not invented the candy bar, we wouldn't be talking about her. Oaktree b (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She's notable for being the namesake of a famous candy bar and also as the daughter of a U.S. president because, on its face (prima facie), she was notable enough at the time to be the namesake of a famous candy bar, making her notable indeed. I'd think being notable for two things would keep this page. Reading your comment inspired me to add her photograph to the Baby Ruth page, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Randy Kryn and WP:IMPACT (what he seems to be alluding to), though admittedly we're likely in WP:PERMA territory with this one. Also WP:10YT, as this subject's notability has stood the test of time. 2601:204:C901:B740:44F8:98CE:740E:7179 (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least to 2012 (even if they got it wrong):

Waxman, Olivia B (July 4, 2012). "Happy Birthday to America—and her First Daughters". TIME. Retrieved August 15, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link) Djflem (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And 1984:https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1984/06/16/009796.html?pageNumber=22 Djflem (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT piece is a letter to the editor and not reliable. The Time article speaks to the notability of first daughters generally; two sentences in a listicle is not WP:SIGCOV. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was in response to this: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/28/style/correction-222816.html, but that point about the candy name has been covered elsewhere.... Djflem (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coverage in the New York Times, whilst society page stuff (3 articles), confers some notability. An obituary in it, (added to article) definitely does:
"Ruth Cleveland Dead" (PDF). The New York Times. January 8, 1904. Retrieved August 15, 2023.
"Ruth Cleveland Buried" (PDF). The New York Times. September 9, 1904. Retrieved August 13, 2023.
1892:https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1892/10/03/106086591.html?pageNumber=1
1897:https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1897/04/03/101102770.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0
1899:https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1899/12/03/100459721.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0

Djflem (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that an obituary is significant, but the three very short tabloidy articles don't contribute. (E.g. getting a pony and a dogcart from a family friend doesn't speak to Ruth's notability.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - But having a major national newspaper talk about that & other little details speaks to the nation's rapture. Djflem (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Djflem: "Speaks to" is original research; it's not the same thing as "a historian said", and no one here has quoted a source that speaks to such feelings... can you link to the three best sources that meet each point laid out at WP:GNG? I'm particularly looking for significant coverage that avoids WP:BIOFAMILY problems (and WP:BIO1E around her untimely death). The NYT obituary is one, but the overall lack of those sources is why I nominated this article for deletion in the first place. The subject could be covered at about the same level of detail in Grover Cleveland or a new "Family of Grover Cleveland" article, with additional content at Baby Ruth. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A more thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE may have revealed the sources you seek. (see below). While the subject could be covered in another article,including a non-existent [[Family of Grover Cleveland (currently a redirect), there appears to more than sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG, making that unnecessary. Djflem (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rather cheesy to delink the article in Grover Cleveland page, while there is an article, as the nominator of this AdF has done.Djflem (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djflem: Let's AGF here, please. I did that after redirecting this article, which was reverted per the WP:BRD cycle. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I've been making. Please stop just going in and erasing articles on your own without discussion of any kind, especially U.S. presidential relative pages (or any pages which even have a snowball's chance at the North Pole of being kept). You may have did those in good faith, and hopefully no more, but yes, Ruth Cleveland is an example of why it's never a good idea to do that for sourced or historically-connected pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your desire to create a better encyclopedia. Please recognize that's why we are all WP:HERE. I must say I do not agree that it is never a good idea to be bold in editing any set of articles, that notion is not in the spirit of pillars 3, 4 and 5. Good faith WP:BOLD edits are fine, and good faith reverts are fine. And indeed, a good discussion is taking place right here. —siro χ o 16:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An oversight, perhaps, but it would have been better if the link had been restored after the BRD cycle, especially since a bluelink to the existing article might have led to this discussion.Djflem (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair sentiment, and I'm glad it was noticed before the close of the discussion, even if there are no deadlines. Thanks for restoring the link. —siro χ o 21:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one page to merge this to. Ruth Cleveland is notable and topic-important in three ways. She's the namesake of one of the most successful candy bars in history, which would be the most likely merge target...at least to some editors. But she's also a president's daughter who was herself famous and notable enough to have a notable candy bar named for her many years after her death and her father's presidency. She is literally alluded to on Wikipedia's main page in today's feature article summary (and linked at least twice in the text of the feature article about her mother, which is a main reason I'm leaving this comment). Then, even if a page was written about her extended family, her stand-alone page would still make her notable as, and I'll repeat, the namesake of one of the most successful and oldest candy bars in history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And hold the presses, have brought over two book references from the Francis Cleveland page, where they were hiding in plain sight. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Randy Kryn, please stop making unsupported assertions of notability without any sources to back up your position. I'll repeat what I said to someone else above: can you link to the three best sources that meet each point laid out at WP:GNG and avoid WP:BIOFAMILY? That's the only thing that matters with regards to keeping or deleting this article. Just list sources so we can stop this circular argument. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unsupported assertions of notability? The Baby Ruth candy bar is named for her, and that ain't beanbag. She's the popular daughter of a president and grew up in the White House. WP:COMMONSENSE already assures her notability even before the sources are looked at which, by the way, are in the article already all laid out for you. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Randy Kryn, that's not how Wikipedia works. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Please read User:RoySmith/Three best sources for why I'm asking for three sources. Just three. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for fixing the two book sources which had been just added to the article (I'd messed up on the coding and copy-and-paste). The Ruth Cleveland page, and I would think the candy bar page, contain adequate sourcing, I'm not going to repeat them here but thanks for the request. There are also several fine sources above. Please memorize WP:COMMONSENSE, it's worth its weight in gold bytes. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've just added another major source, brought over from the "Baby Ruth" article, where there are probably more but the page has enough references for the candy bar name and its interesting backstory. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this History source Babe Ruth or Baby Ruth: Who Was the Candy Bar Named After? notes "Newspapers and the American public paid close attention to “Baby Ruth” after her father returned to the White House in 1893 for his second presidential term, but the Clevelands fiercely protected their daughter’s privacy and refused repeated requests by American newspapers to take her photograph" and "By 1921, Babe Ruth was a household name while “Baby Ruth,” who died 17 years beforehand, was a historical footnote." Beccaynr (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But luckily a good photograph does exist and is used on the page. Her memory was still strong enough in the public's mind (which meets WP:20YT) that the candy bar was accepted as being named after her, and the candy company won the court case in 1931 when George Ruth belatedly made the claim that it was named after him, mainly because he wanted to sell his own candy bar. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quinn and Kanter and NYT Obit (references 1 and 2 as of now) are independent, RS, non-trivial coverage. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment refs added to idea of national sensation, one of which describes her birth as the "advent was that of a princess of being of royal the blood".

"Ruth Cleveland". The Missoulian. January 4, 1904. Retrieved August 15, 2023 – via Newspapers. com.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

"Babe Ruth". The Saint Paul Globe. November 20, 1891. Retrieved August 15, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

"Baby Ruth and Baby M'ee". Pittsburgh Dispatch. November 13, 1891. Retrieved August 15, 2023 – via Newspapers. com.

Djflem (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also an interesting read, tho not useable as a ref:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27989/battle-babies-white-house-brawl

"America's Biggest Celebrity Baby Name? Baby Ruth". July 10, 2023.

Djflem (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Djflem (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:Trout the nominator for complete lack of WP:Before research, which would quickly show that Ruth Cleveland's birth and brief life was a major news event with political impact and concomitant media coverage. The sources are clearly available to show notability at the time and sustained attention (although that's not neccesary, because notability is permanent.) The misinterpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED that would have us delete this article is not quite as bad as saying we should delete Archduke Franz Ferdinand on that basis, but it's close. Jahaza (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Struck prior redirect !vote above) Weak keep per WP:HEY. The sourcing is improved, and the content of the article demonstrates that. I think WP:BASIC will be readily met in time, given the era, though it's borderline at the current moment. If it remains borderline, I believe, as Reywas92 suggested above, that a new article on the Family of Grover Cleveland would be a good alternative to consider as an editorial decision. —siro χ o 19:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articke quality looks ok, sources are good. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:SIGCOV Djflem (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references now in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Tad Lincoln, Edward Baker Lincoln, William Wallace Lincoln and Patrick Bouvier Kennedy are all examples of children of US presidents who died as children, or as a 39 hour old infant in the case of Kennedy. Cullen328 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Guzmán

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

The article fails WP:SYNTH, only having 1 citation which seems to be broken. Fails WP:COMPOSER; she signed with Universal Music, and later BMG, but composed nothing, to my knowledge. She also fails WP:GNG. Nothing here is notable, at all. IncompA 02:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. IncompA 02:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject has one album with a short AllMusic review [25], as well as an album as a member of a band [26], and a couple composer credits [27][28]. May be possible to pull more out from that. —siro χ o 05:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ecuador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject had minor career success between 2006 and 2008 and nothing else since. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ BuySomeApples (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodania

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

I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in English. Unless someone can find more information in Swiss or Belgian publications I think this might not be notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rodania seems to be a place name, so coverage is hard to find. I have this in Belgian news [29], [30]. Will continue to look. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This as well [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be more coverage in Belgian than Swiss outlets, but the brand itself seems to be have quite a bit of local lore around it[32]. Superboilles (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough sources to support the subject's notability. E.g. La Voix du Nord "La voiture Rodania disparaît du paysage des courses belges"; Paris Match "Rebonjour, Rodania"; Le Soir "Les montres Rodania redeviennent belges" & "La marque de montres Rodania change de mains"; etc. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The argument to keep this is relatively straightforward; those arguing to keep say the topic has SIGCOV, and present some sources to back this up. There are broadly speaking two arguments to delete; the first, that this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL; the second, that it is a violation of WP:SYNTH to the point of becoming original research. I find the CRYSTAL argument somewhat weaker on the face of it, because policy explicitly allows for articles when sufficient coverage exists. However, several editors argue that this topic is not typically framed the same way in the sources as it is framed here, and as such it isn't clear that there is in fact sufficient coverage of the article topic as it stands. The synthesis argument is also strong; we should not be concocting an article topic when reliable sources are exploring a broader and more nuanced set of circumstances. These arguments have largely not been rebutted. There is some support for a merger and redirect to an article with broader scope. There is no clear consensus as to a target, and as such I can't close this in favor of a merge, but if anyone wishes to develop the content here toward a merger I would be willing to refund this to userspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical dissolution of the Russian Federation

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

Yet another speculative article in the same vein as Second American Revolution (deleted), Second American Civil War (also deleted), and Potential breakup of the United Kingdom {redirected). Not as bad as the two American articles (which were largely expressions of hyperbole), but like the UK article it concerns something that hasn't happened and may never happen, or if it does, may fail to conform to analysts' projections. It's a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - I think this is quite hard. Whilst I can see the WP:CRYSTAL argument, it is also hard to argue that this isn't a notable talking point when Putin himself refers to it. The trouble for me is that it it going to be hard to write a balanced piece when the two main sources of references are Russian language (likely pro-Putin) commentary and English language (likely pro-NATO) commentary. Whilst they may be expressing the same idea, presumably the intention is very different and may be reacting and/or feeding off the language of the other. So I'm not sure what to do with that. JMWt (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Wasn’t this already AFD’d before?) The subject clearly meets WP:GNG, with hundreds or thousands of RS’s about it.[33][34] (For crying out loud, please refer to the guidelines when proposing deletion.) Plenty of things that haven’t happened are valid encyclopedic subjects: e.g., end of the universe, siege of Minas Tirith. —Michael Z. 18:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{no it hasn't, at least under this name) Yeah, lots of people talk about this, if only to bulk up the pages of Foreign Policy and its ilk, but it's still all speculative analysis and thus material about events that may or may not occur. And your comparisons with WP:OTHERSTUFF are inapt and irrelevant. The siege of Minas Tirith has happened, in the pages of Tolkien's novel; the end of the universe is a matter of scientific inquiry not subject to the whims of human individuals. By contrast it's not the least bit unlikely that the speculations of this article will be overcome by events even in the near-term, much less decades off. The problem isn't notability; it's that the subject is not proper to an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re misinterpreting the guideline. We are not speculating. We are reporting the fact that reliable sources are discussing the politics of the RF, its possibilities, and the ramifications of present actions. “Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included.” —Michael Z. 05:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secession in Russia (2nd nomination) is a previous nomination of this article. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen this being talked about a lot since the start of the war. Which has always struck to me as Western wishful thinking because I doubt it happens. But I thought the same about a coup taking place. Oh well. The point is I'm pretty sure there's enough material talking about this. Definitively more than a "Second American Revolution". As JMWt has pointed out even the current tsar of Russia acknowledges this scenario. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is speculative. Compare it to the Hypothetical partition of Belgium, which also covers a hypothetical future political event, but does so by discussing hypotheticals put forward by various parties in Belgian politics during discussions specifically regarding the Flemish Secession Movement. It's the difference between "How might the Russian Federation Collapse?" And "What do various people argue would happen if a specific group of Belgians got their way." To the extent that the article up for deletion contains content similar to the Hypothetical partition of Belgium article, that content can be added to the Separatism in Russia article. 74.101.163.85 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Is not a live political debate, in Russia or elsewhere. While we can cover hypothetical or theoretical scholarly analyses, pulling together disparate discussions of hypothetical reconfigurations of Russia that have little in common runs the substantial risk of Original Research by synthesis. Would need the existence of secondary sources analyzing various models of Russian dissolution and discussing them as a topic to be a viable article and I don't see that here. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or Rename~~. The term is used in academic literature, as well as by politicians and historians, to discuss the influence of various factors, primarily the unique case of the republics of Russia being part of the Russian state, on statehood and federalism. The term "hypothetical" in this context doesn't imply "future" or "predicted". I specifically recommend reading works by Shevchenko, Shaplentokh, and Surkov, referenced in the article. The article, the title of which seemingly enticed some editors to add a bunch of speculations, should not be considered an exhaustive source on the meaning of the term and the available sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the Mellk's merge/split proposal in the comments below as an alternative. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or Merge. I'm persuaded by Rosguill's arguments and the comments from other editors that the available WP:SECONDARY sources might not be sufficient to write a good article with the current title and scope. While I still see value in renaming the article to a less sensationalist title, such as one focused on statehood or federalism, I believe merging it with the Separatism in Russia - given that the majority of its text and sources concentrate on that topic - or considering deletion due to WP:NPOV concerns based on the rationale of WP:ATD-E are viable alternatives that I wouldn't oppose. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keepthe article appears to provide a comprehensive overview of various aspects of the topic, including historical precedents, the views of the scientists and public figures, etc. Reliable sources, good coverage, not fringe theory or original research. Keep. 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is possibly the strongest of the recent of these types of articles brought to AFD. I still worry it's a bit of a COATRACK. There are sources from several different decades. discussing this idea in various contexts. There are some good articles in here, but putting them all together like this still feels a bit SYNTH. I don't quite have it in me to run all the sources through Google Translate. Can anyone point me to any surveys across decades/topics that discuss this broadly, including the last couple years? —siro χ o 03:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
English-language sources might use slightly different terms: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=+Russia+federalism+secession, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=+Russia+federalism+viability, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=russia+disintegration etc PaulT2022 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe be best to merge to Separatism in Russia if mostly about secession. Mellk (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the topic is somewhat wider (see introduction in Federalism, Democratization, and the Rule of Law in Russia for example), and Russian statehood or Federalism in Russia would be more appropriate, but a merge to Separatism in Russia can be an option too if its scope can be widened to include implications to the entire country instead of focusing on individual regions. PaulT2022 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I think it would be better to merge to the separatism article and also have an article about federalism. Actually, I am surprised there is not already one, considering the changes and weakening of federalism over the past 20 years to the point it is almost practically non-existent. Mellk (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment A lot of people are focusing on the sourcing and are not really addressing the criticism I made: it may be sourced speculation, but it's still speculation. Look, Putin may get hit by a meteor tomorrow, and nobody really has a good handle on what the outcome would be, never mind in extreme contingency of such an event. The record on these speculations is extremely poor, and it's just not an encyclopedic subject. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lo and behold, there is an article about Putin getting hit by a meteor tomorrow.

The criticism is valid for the title and a significant portion of the content, but not for the subject. Why would federalism and morphing of the mode of government of a given country not be an encyclopedic subject?

One could remove all poorly sourced speculations and there'd be plenty of material describing the processes that were ongoing for the last three decades and scholars' and politicians' opinions theorising about the reasons behind them. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources have made the speculations to the level that the speculation itself meets GNG, we can write an article on the subject. My concern is SYNTH. There are so many different contexts under which the sources we have were written. For example, I have yet to see a 2022 or 2023 article that ties recent events to the contexts in 1990s or 2000s. The sources may very well exist but I haven't seen them yet. —siro χ o 05:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Notability is necessary, but not sufficient. WP:CRYSTAL for one, addresses what kind of material is to be included, regardless of what has been written about it. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From that link: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. —siro χ o 02:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Man you fooled me, I thought the article was actually named "Putin getting hit by a meteor tomorrow", that would have been way funnier.★Trekker (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something being speculation has no impact on if it passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to pass GNG is not the justification for deletion given. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge/delete - I coincide with the COATRACK, synthesis, and CRYSTAL views, and tried to assuage them by looking for peer-reviewed sources in particular: among the bibliography amassed here and at the ru.wiki article, the only source that clearly begins to establish a basis for notability is the Shevchenko source. Its bibliography, unfortunately, did not point to any other overviews of a similar quality. The sources that to me establish the notability of a subject like this in the face of its inherently speculative nature are reviews of literature on the topic that serve as secondary sources tracking the discourse, its history and evolution and its impacts on society more broadly. I don't find the cited Shaplenkoth and Surkov pieces to be a good basis for an article with the current scope. Searching on Google Scholar in Russian, virtually all results are about the Bolshevik Revolution or the collapse of the USSR, or else use raspad to refer to decay and a more general fall in stature, rather than dissolution and balkanization. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. There are 58 citations in the article, but only a handful of them (1, 2, 3, 4) directly cover the subject of the article in depth, at least as far as I can tell since so many are in Russian. Note that most of these sources are thinktanks like Atlantic Council and American Enterprise Institute, whose role is in part to predict and influence the future based on a political agenda, not neutrally describe the state of international affairs. If 90%+ of the sources don't even directly cover the topic in question, that's clearly a sign of synthesis and original research being written, rather than a summary of secondary reliable sources. Steven Walling • talk 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the two delete votes above: I think it's also important to note that this is a translation from ru-wiki that does not fully make sense in English. For example, the lede has this sentence: The term is frequently used in academic literature and journalism in discussions about Russian statehood and challenges that are perceived to threaten the unity and integrity of the Russian state. Both cited sources are in Russian! No evidence whatsoever is given that suggests "dissolution of the Russian Federation" is frequently used in journalism and academic literature. -- asilvering (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W36EX-D

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

Another non-notable LPTV. Fails WP:GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: [[35]] is the best I could fine. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We've tightened our notability standards over the years (especially since 2021, at least in this topic area), and it's hard to imagine a small religious station, even if it has been around since around 1995, getting the sufficient significant coverage needed (and the only coverage under this call sign indicates the only other potential future for a page at this title is a redirect to NewsNet, but I think that would be premature for now). (It has a license in the class A television service, implying some local programming is—or at least was—supposed to exist, but Wikipedia requires verifiable evidence of that.) Note that this station used to be W50CH-D (and, in the analog days, just W50CH) before the FCC eliminated television channels above 36 a few years back; based on searches, it appears the only coverage of this station on Stltoday, the website of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, are some passing mentions of the channel change that could not possibly be construed as significant coverage of the station itself. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://g.co/kgs/aP2rQJ

[2] ttps://open.spotify.com/artist/4CpA6KhbohKW7a1huUT7oU

[3] ttps://ra.co/dj/dennyb/biography

[4] Quantitative Analysis of Genealogy Using Digitised Family Trees Michael Fire, Thomas Chesney & Yuval Elovici September 2, 2014 https://archive.org/details/arxiv-1408.5571 retrieved 4 August 2023

[5] "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Brittanicus (Bef.0041-0055) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]