Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Rawlings}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Edem Agbana}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Edem Agbana}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovery of Chittorgarh (1321)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovery of Chittorgarh (1321)}}

Revision as of 14:08, 17 March 2024

< March 16 March 18 >

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Rawlings

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the sources in the article are independent of the subject, or SIGCOV for that matter, and I was unable to find any SIGCOV during a search. The best that I could find was an interview from 2018 that didn't contain any independent prose from the author, who also states that she has collaborated with the subject in the past. Alvaldi (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have added some more reviews of the Wide slumber for lepidopterists. Perhaps too many. But these seem to me to help establish notability (subject of multiple independent reviews). (Msrasnw (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Edem Agbana

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claims here are as a youth political organizer and as yet unelected candidate in a future election, neither of which are grounds for a Wikipedia article per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one -- but the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, which are not support for notability, and the one hit of media coverage about him winning a primary to contest the future election is not by itself enough to make him more special than all the other unelected candidates in the country who aren't getting articles on that basis.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the fall if he wins the seat, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to already get him an article now. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article can be reverted to AFD as there will be other requests to recreate the page a few months from now. In my view, he established notability after winning the primaries because of the circumstance around it. As he's not yet a politician, does he qualify for notability as a "regular" person Heatrave (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery of Chittorgarh (1321)

Recovery of Chittorgarh (1321) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see any WP:RS explicitly records the event as "Recovery of Chittorgarh". Many forts has been captured and recaptured several times in the military history. Seperate articles are made whenever they are notable. As seems, the article is poorly written, taken the reference from broken lines from the sources. No in-depth description about this in any of the reliable sources. Fails GNG, and the title is a fabricated one. Imperial[AFCND] 11:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How could you call a historical battle fabricated? It was a turning point in history of Mewar State. I don't think it's Necessary to remove the article Sinsilal (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sinsilal, do not move an article being discussed at an AFD to Draft space nor remove the AFD tag. If you persist, you could lose your editing privileges for disruptive editing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:- The creator of this article is found to be a sock of a common POV pusher.--Imperial[AFCND] 12:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One source cannot be found, another does not entirely support the narrative, such as it is, the others are difficult to search for lack of page numbers. Brief, poorly written. Written by sock of a POV pusher, unreliable. I agree with the previous commentators. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Tencent Games. Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspeed LA

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

Game studio of Tencent. Standalone notability appears insufficient, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. IgelRM (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somnath Khara

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

Soccerway stub on a footballer that played two matches before disappearing. My own searches yielded nothing better than Telegraph India, which mentions him in the title and an image caption but only once in the main article prose (so it's not WP:SIGCOV), and TOI, another match report that mentions him, this time his performance wasn't so good and the article mentions some mistakes he made but doesn't go into any depth about him as an individual. From the second article, we can perhaps make a presumption as to why his career was so short (although this would be WP:OR) but having a bad game, on its own, is not enough for WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG and I don't see any actual direct significant coverage of Khara. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Kathrin Dern

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

Fails WP:NBIO, apparently the creator is the subject of the article. Awards don't appear to sufficient for notability. IgelRM (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There have been no new comments since March 23rd despite three relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. A possible Merge or Redirect can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PanEuropa Armenia

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

Branch of Paneuropean Union, merge into the article? IgelRM (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Armenia. IgelRM (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep- There are thousands of stand-alone "branch organization" articles from unions, to student organizations, political parties, etc. In this case, PanEuropa Armenia is the only "PanEuropa" branch which has a Wiki article. Merging would mean giving the Armenian branch complete undue weight (WP:RSUW) in the article. In addition, PEA highlights very topic specific activities which would seem totally out of place in Paneuropean Union. There are certain goals and objectives that the PEA focuses on that Paneuropean Union does not, and vice versa. Just as in the case that it wouldn't make sense to merge Volt Italy into Volt Europa. They focus on "country specific" issues that would be out of place in the main article. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is that the branch doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. Which is different from party Volt, which country parties all have articles, so this is at least novel. Weight needs to be considered with a merge, but it can be more of a redirect if it is a problem. IgelRM (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect I counted at least 4 citations to Facebook and one to YouTube. These are not enough for GNG or SIGCOV. If we merge only the reliably sourced content the weight problems at the merge target will be minimal. Ben Azura (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MicroWorld Technologies

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP, though it's WP:LISTED. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases, obvious sponsored content like this in WP:NEWSORGINDIA and on computing news websites, and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of colleges and universities in Metro Manila. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian College

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

Single source, fails WP:GNG Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of universities and colleges in Iloilo. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Therese – MTC Colleges

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

Fails WP:GNG, no non-primary source Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradelykooper and Hariboneagle927: Would you be fine with a Redirect to List of universities and colleges in Iloilo as per WP:ATD? --Lenticel (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The International Resource Privilege

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

Incoherent start/stub article with a references list that despite its surface impressiveness doesn’t seem to demonstrate notability. While I personally agree completely with the sentiments expressed, it’s quite unclear that it passes encyclopedic muster, in my opinion. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Unanimous. JBW (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Lucknow

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context (and not one single source). Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. I looked at one of these, List of songs about Lucknow, in detail. It looks like it meets WP:LISTN to me. LISTN says, it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Well, we've got a source, 10 Bollywood Songs That Has Captured Lucknow And Its Charm. That sure seems like it meets the LISTN requirement. I only looked at the others more briefly, but at first glance, they seem like they meet LISTN as well. Bundling all of these into a single AfD doesn't help, because perhaps some are notable and some are not. I would suggest keeping them all for now and allowing (WP:NPASR) people to bring back specific ones that they really feel fail LISTN. That fact that the creator of this lists has subsequently been banned is immaterial. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
That means that both List of songs about Delhi and List of songs about Lucknow have independent sources which relate to those two lists as lists per se. The proposed multiple deletion is therefore unjustified. These lists need to be discussed individually.
I agree that it's the content of the article which matters, even if it was posted by a banned user. Narky Blert (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The source in question (now a dead URL) was removed by GermanJoe in October 2018 with the edit summary: rmv - not a reliable source. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "List of songs about [X city]" articles should be evaluated on their own merits, and some such articles definitely have a claim to notability, for cities that have been the subject of several notable songs or songs by notable artists, and whose songs have been discussed as a set in independent, reliable sources. Like the nominator, I find that this list fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR. Any notable songs can be discussed in a "In popular culture" section or similar at Lucknow. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting. I can't tell if IgnatiusofLondon is offering an opinion here (please BOLD) or just catching us up on the history here but since the article was part of a previous bundled nomination, it's not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One is a comment, one is a !vote :)) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, IgnatiusofLondon. I misread your comments. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, seeking more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Chennai

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. This has even been deleted previously. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Local enterprise partnership. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Marches Local Enterprise Partnership

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

Zero secondary sources. Does not meet WP:NORG, lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Local enterprise partnership - On keep/delete, it is not a spammy business, for which NCORP rightly sets a high bar, but strictly speaking NCORP applies, so there is a touch of IAR about a keep !vote. I considered a weak keep, and I considered not voting at all and just hoping for a no consensus, as IAR is usually a bad argument at AfD. And, to be clear, if someone can make a strong argument as to why this should or should not be here, I'll reconsider. But to the specifics: Rupples provides a number of links, presented suitably critically (with thanks to Rupples). The first link is actually pretty good. The "Understanding the policy-making processes behind local growth strategies in England" studies the issues and contains a significant mention of this. It comes close to WP:SIRS as it is significant, independent, reliable and... well... it is actually primary in that it is research. The mention of the LEP is arguably secondary inasmuch as it is about the LEP - but that is debatable in fact. So it's good, but not perfect and not multiple, of course. Most of the others run into issues of primary sourcing, being news, or independence, as Rupples already noted. So by the strict standards of NCORP, we are not there. If we went with GNG, where sources "should" be secondary, we are in a greyer area. The point being that there are sources from which an article could be written, although not much information. Looking at the article itself, it's a bit of a disaster. It says almost nothing, and the list of towns is rather pointless. I think it comes down to WP:PAGEDECIDE. I would very very weakly favour keeping this over deletion, but ultimately the reader will be best served by just reading about the whole concept of LEPs. This page adds nothing beyond that, and, as things stand, could not add much if anything that could not simply enhance the LEP page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Local enterprise partnership. Difficult deciding what to recommend here, but concur with the comments made by Sirfurboy. There's insufficient independent indepth sourcing to satisfy relevant notability criteria. This could change should an independent appraisal(s) akin to an obituary be published after the Partnership is wound up on 31 March 2024.[9] If there is, the article could be rewritten and reinstated, but if not it's better left as a redirect.Rupples (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was draftify and merge to the existing draft, which I will carry out now. BD2412 T 03:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salaar: Part 2 – Shouryaanga Parvam

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

Nominating per WP:NYF. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as Draftify only to find that there is a similar draft version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review, contact me or WP:REFUND. But if it is moved directly back to main space, it will be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Atchuthan

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, filmmakers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but this article was "sourced" predominantly to IMDb and his own LinkedIn and streaming copies of his films on YouTube, which are not support for notability, and even the three footnotes I didn't strip are still primary sources that still aren't support for notability, with not even one hit of GNG-worthy third-party coverage shown. And the closest thing to a notability claim is that he won a minor local-interest award that isn't prominent enough to clinch passage of WP:ANYBIO all by itself.
The notability test on Wikipedia, as always, doesn't hinge on saying that he did stuff -- it hinges on the amount of media coverage that he did or didn't get for doing stuff, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, There are Wikipedia articles of filmmakers that use IMDB as a source, for example Lenin M. Sivam's fourth reference is his IMDB page for his film "A Gun & a Ring." Also his third source is also his own IMDB for his film "Roobha." I don't understand why IMDB can't be a reliable source for filmmakers. I will add the {{refimprove}} template to the heritage beyond borders and other parts of the article. Also the Wikipedia page for 964 Pinocchio also has IMDB as one of their sources. Going back to Lenin M. Sivam's article, most of his Wikipedia page is unsourced with no {{refimprove}} template.
Thank you for editing this Wikipedia page and more importantly, thank you for the feedback. I hope to hear back from you soon. Mfb2523 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added a new source in Ravi Atchuthan's section "2014 - present: return to filmmaking. Also, I added [citation needed] in various sections.
Thank you. Mfb2523 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no such thing on Wikipedia as "that other article is breaking the rules and thus this article is also allowed to break the rules" — that's a reason for that other article to get fixed and/or listed for deletion, not a reason for this article to be allowed to stay broken. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thank you for bringing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to my attention. Can you please let me know if the article "Ravi Atchuthan" is now up to standard? Also, should I add more [citation needed] to various sections. Mfb2523 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, could you please let me know if the article "Ravi Atchuthan" is now up to standard? Also, should I add more [citation needed] to various sections. Thank you. Mfb2523 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's still referenced almost entirely to the same primary sources that weren't acceptable before — and the only new source you've added is one that briefly mentions Ravi Atchuthan's name without being about Ravi Atchuthan in any sense, which still isn't what we're looking for. We require detailed and substantive media coverage about Ravi Atchuthan and his work, not just technical verification that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I added another source, which is media coverage on the work of Ravi Atchuthan. Mfb2523 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I added the {{more citations needed}} template above the article so fellow Wikipedia editors can add to Ravi Atchuthan's article. Mfb2523 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added another reliable from The A.V. Club that proves Ravi Atchuthan's film Malare Mounama, which stars a popular Indian actress Aunja Iyer. Mfb2523 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're still not getting it. The AV Club citation you added is not an article about Ravi Atchuthan's film, it's just a directory entry, and the other new source you added is just a photo gallery of people at a screening, neither of which are what's required. Like I said before, we are not looking for simple verification that he and his films exist, we're looking for substantive written prose content about them — journalism about him, reviews of his films by professional film critics, etc. — to verify that he his films have been independently assessed as significant by people other than his own public relations agent. Directory entries don't cut it, and photo galleries don't cut it, and primary sourcing doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for the feedback, I will be adding sources in the next couple of days.
Also I added the
template above the article so fellow Wikipedia editors can add to Ravi Atchuthan's article. Mfb2523 (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have removed the poor sources you mentioned the article has. Mfb2523 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication any further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 01:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pete List

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

There are not enough secondary sources about this person for this page to pass general notability guidelines. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. However if you think this can be re-scoped and would like it in draft space to do so, just let me know. Star Mississippi 01:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dubăsari (1992)

Battle of Dubăsari (1992) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Transnistria War was not a war like the one in for example Ukraine right now, with battles, large scale campaigns and offensives. Transnistria is a small sliver of land along a river with like seven towns. The Transnistria War was mostly clashing in the streets or in the bridges separating Transnistria and Moldova proper between civilians, policemen and informal militias of differing ideologies. There were no professional soldiers. There's actually not that much to write about and there were no proper battles.

The only exception was the battle of Tighina (1992) when Russian forces crossed the river I mentioned before and entered a Moldovan town with tanks and armored vehicles. Reliable sources recognize this difference, we have 20 results for "Battle of Tighina" or "Bender" (the town has two alternate names) [10] and 0 results for "Battle of Dubăsari" [11]. This article is WP:Original research and splitting this small war into the few towns it happened in is not productive. Take notice that the subsection #Cocieri-Dubăsari area occupies a third of Transnistria War#Military conflict.

Also worth mentioning are the article's contents. The infobox says one timeframe which is actually a small fraction of the article. Most of the article is either clashes between civilians/policemen rather than a proper military conflict or larger political events. Some of the covered clashes aren't even about the town of Dubăsari but about the province (Dubăsari District). There's also a lot of unsourced content. The article is quite a mess. With all this I propose the deletion of this article. Super Ψ Dro 18:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Occidental Phantasmagoria, I don't think the article is necessary. As I said Transnistria is small, and the Transnistria War relatively uneventful. At just 3,965 words, the article Transnistria War is very well within our allowed article sizes and a split is only recommended starting from 8,000 words [12], that's double of the current article size. Fighting in Dubăsari is not particularly singled out or distinguished in reliable sources, there is no apparent reason that it should get an article of its own. "Battle of Dubăsari" is an original research creation not used in any source (unlike the Bender/Tighina case). Thus I very strongly recommend that we do not split the war into fork articles like this one, which is also of low quality. Super Ψ Dro 17:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful, as well as additional thoughts on changing the article's scope via a move.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pierre Price

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

I'm not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this artist per WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The article is mainly referenced to primary sources from a group exhibition called "Techspressionism", in which he showed an artwork. An online BEFORE search finds lots of social media, and user-submitted content, and more primary sources. I found one good news source, [13] but that is not enough to put him over the bar, as what is needed are multiple, independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. WP:COI seems evident. Netherzone (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of sources found. It would be great if those brought up in this discussion could be added to the article. And also, does the article creator, User:Gwanwata have a response here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not finding sufficient RS sourcing for this article. The coverage is mostly local (Arizona) of regional shows. The artist is not part of any notable collections, nor been part of any notable exhibitions. There is no reliable sourcing for biographical information presented. The article is WP:PROMO and fails WP:ARTIST. I am finding nothing to bring it up to notable. Sentences like "In 2010 he made the bold decision to leave the gaming industry behind and pursue his new calling as a Techspressionist artist. Combining his technical expertise with artistic vision, he began creating unique and thought-provoking artworks that explore the relationship between technology and human expression." are not encyclopedic. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how the article subject meets GNG, and there is no indication the artist meets the notability criteria for visual artists, NARTIST. There is one good source, AZ Sun, but the other one mentioned above by Hobit is a two paragraph modified press release announcing the show, it's a very week source. Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netherzone. I am the subject of this article and I understand that I have a conflict of interest, but I would like to work through the process to fix the issues here. I am in uncharted waters with regards to how Wikipedia operates, but I do believe I have substantive sources on both the game design side of my career and also for my art career. What I have done in my 30 years as a game designer is much greater than my art career, but I am hopeful that there is a good case to be made on my behalf for me as an artist and game designer. However, let me say that my sources are strong for the game industry as I have reviewed the Wikipedia pages of past colleagues this week. I would appreciate any guidance you might have in how best to move forward. I have new sources that are not currently being used in my article, but I don't know how to present them and who to present them to, since it looks like I should not make edits here on my own because of the conflict of interest. Thank you for your attention and help. ConradJens (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ConradJens, Thank you for your message and for disclosing that you are the subject of the article, welcome to Wikipedia. You are free to post on this AfD discussion. Just so you know, in compliance with WP:COI you should not edit articles about yourself or close associates or family (other than minor corrections and things like punctuation fixes), and if you create any new articles they should be run through Articles for Creation, rather than created directly in article space.
COI editing is discouraged because introduces systemic bias into the encyclopedia, as well as potenital original research and non-neutral material, and promotional content.
If you have sources to share about your work in the game industry, post those references and links here for assessment. At this time the article only has one decent source, the Arizona Sun article. A general rule of thumb is there should be three solid references that are significant coverage published in reliable sources that are fully independent of the subject to definitively establish notability.
Good sources would be newspaper articles (not press releases, calendar listings or the like); reviews about your work, games, or publications in reliable sources (not blogs, social media, or primary souces like user-submitted content, interviews, etc.); book chapters or significant coverage in journal articles about you or your work. These should be independent, not written by your or your close associates or colleagues. Wikipedia is interested in what neutral others have said about you and/or your work in reliable sources, not what one says about themself. This is how the integrity of the encyclopedia is maintained. Hope that helps. Netherzone (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, I would like to address the issues in two stages. I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up. And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career. One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco. I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed. First off - TSR. I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.
Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover)
https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit)
https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.
ps://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.)
The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.
https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals. In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.
https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.)
As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.
Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.)
I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price. Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days. Thank you for your attention. ConradJens (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I have a sincere question to the experienced editors or watchers. I may have missed some guideline changes about notability criteria for BLPs – things do change quickly around here – but I can't find anything about changes to GNG or NARTIST. It's always been my understanding that at least THREE solid sources that are independent, significant coverage, and published in a reliable sources (national or international being preferred over local) were required. Q: Is one good-quality local source, and one local press release/calendar event all it takes now to establish the notability of a person? Netherzone (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Netherzone,
This question might warrant a talk page discussion on the pertinent policy page. But my understanding about the "law of Three" (that's my term, not Wikipedia's), is that editors in AFD frequently ask for the best three reliable sources (sometimes out of dozens included in the article) as a way of gauging whether or not a subject is notable. It's not a policy guideline or recommendation, it comes from a User essay, User:RoySmith/Three best sources. But it's a valid question to ask to help AFD discussion focus on what's important. Unfortunately, over time, it has been misunderstood by some editors as being a policy rule but it's just a shorthand to help editors come to a decision on whether or not sufficient sourcing exists and to cut through refspam on some articles. But, by contrast, our BLPPROD guide only requires one reliable source to be preesnt on an article to prevent deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Liz! I guess I'm still a bit confused; I understand it applies to BLPPROD. Could you please, when you have a moment, clarify if that means that GNG and/or NARTIST is met by only one reliable source? (The reason I'm asking here is I'm considering withdrawing the nom if that is the case.) Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does say sources, plural. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's currently just a single source (Arizona Daily Sun) providing anything close to significant coverage in a reliable source, and that looks like just fairly routine coverage of a local art show. ConradJens says above that they are the subject of the article, and that they have possible additional sources. It could be moved to ConradJens user space if they want to try to cut back the unsourced promotion and add reputable sources for everything. Elspea756 (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I am copying this message here because it was placed above in direct response to my ongoing conversation with Netherzone a couple of days ago, but I see that new comments need to be added here. My apologies if I initially posted this comment in the wrong place. I am trying to make sure the information I am providing helps address some of the issues previously identified.
    Netherzone, I would like to address the issues in two stages. I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up. And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career. One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco. I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed. First off - TSR. I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.
    Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover)
    https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit)
    https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.
    https://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.)
    The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.
    https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals. In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.
    https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.)
    As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.
    Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.)
    I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price. Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days. Thank you for your attention.
    ConradJens (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I checked at least the first few links when you originally posted them. They don't change my view, as they are as you say just "credits". Yes, they show you worked on these projects, but what we are looking for is what is described at WP:GNG, which is basically in-depth coverage by reliable sources, like multiple paragraphs written in a book or a reputable newspaper. Elspea756 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the sources provided by ConradJens do little to better the case for meeting WP:GNG. But, wouldn't the review of They've Invaded Pleasantville in The Space Gamer contribute toward meeting WP:CREATIVE? See #3 "major role" in work that was critically reviewed? How many of these would be needed? -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite the review you are describing? Elspea756 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Barton, William A. (August 1981). "Capsule Reviews". The Space Gamer. Steve Jackson Games (42): 31. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links ConradJens, however these are databases, credits, name-checks or user-submitted content. In the same way that WP does not consider IMDb a reliable source to establish notability for actors/film industry professionals, so not so sure about these. As part of a WP:BEFORE, per WP guidelines and RSP, a search for game industry reliable sources, but unfortunately did not get any results. It's clear that you did this work, but what I can't find is significant coverage of your role in these works as analyzed by independent industry experts to fulfill GNG. I know it's disappointing, and I'm sorry for that, but what is needed are more than mentions. Agree with @Elspea756 above. Netherzone (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Netherzone
    Here is a book interview done where I am one of six Coleco game development team members interviewed.
    Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco. 2600:8800:122:4A00:6DEE:364F:687F:E669 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Netherzone
    Sorry, I was not logged in previously. My apologies for the previous post just above.
    Here is a book interview done where I am one of six Coleco game development team members interviewed.
    Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco.
    ConradJens (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure whether to close this as No consensus or relist but reading this discussion over (again), it feels like we are still in the middle of a discussion, not the end. Can we have any more opinions on the source offered? It would be great if this could be in a Deletion sort for Video Games.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*'Comment Thank you for the suggestion Liz. I will add it to Games. The subject does not meet notability for artist. Indeed, the subject of the article would prefer it be focused on game design career. If the article isn't edited into notable under those criteria, I would vote for . --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry--- I cant find a category specifically on video games, and I have already voted for delete.[reply]

source analysis

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.phoenixmag.com/2016/12/01/artist-of-the-month-michael-pierre-price/ Yes No Local coverage of No Strangers – Annual Members’ Exhibition at Art Intersection in Gilbert, from December 13-January 7. ✘ No
https://www.playform.io/editorial/callmeishmael No No "Playform" is an AI product. This is the product website No Interview ✘ No
https://azdailysun.com/flaglive/cover_story/math-art-the-enigmatic-creations-of-michael-pierre-price/article_68547405-3390-5da4-8e86-cca1d83de1c2.html Yes Yes This is an local arts listing and interview No non-sig coverage ✘ No
https://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/d-day-50th-anniversary-in-a-farmhouse-in-france-they/article_12f6cb0f-77e4-5f7a-8dec-d8d2f4230807.html an article about D Day? behind paywall. can't access ? Unknown
https://aaqeastend.com/contents/aaq-portfolio-southampton-arts-center-exhibit-art-techspressionism-digital-beyond/ AAQ Portfolio Essay Southampton Arts Center no text. Promotion of 2022 show No non-sig coverage ✘ No
https://www.playform.io/editorial/michael/ No No "Playform" is an AI product. This is the product website No ✘ No
https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/47/6/531/1051174/Nonrelativistic-contribution-to-Mercury-s?redirectedFrom=fulltext Yes Yes 1979 academic paper "Nonrelativistic contribution to Mercury’s perihelion precession" written by the subject of the article - primary source No n ✘ No
https://artintersection.com/event/maps-enigmatic-landscape/ No No Art Intersection is a local gallery No promotional listing for MAPS: Enigmatic Landscape is a solo exhibition of digital prints by Michael Pierre Price shown in the Jewel Gallery at the Coconino Center for the Arts in Flagstaff, AZ. ✘ No
https://thewrong.org/Cyberiana No No Virtual exhibtion - no idea if it is juried No passing mention ✘ No
https://www.mesacc.edu/arts/event/2023-02/future-printmaking-survey-graphic-arts Yes No local coverage No event listing for "The Future of Printmaking: A Survey of the Graphic Arts" at Mesa Community College ✘ 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}}.

The remainder of the citations are to pages at https://techspressionism.com/ a non-independant soucre and one more - https://www.lafleurartworks.com/event-22-secondary-page-1-2023 an event listing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a biography, this isn't subject to WP:NCORP, so there is no audience requirement. Therefore, I'd consider the first and third sources in this table to be GNG sources. ~ A412 talk! 05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, article is a mess, almost the entirety of the prose fails NPOV and is cited to primary sources. That being said, per my reply above to the source assessment table, I think he's mildly notable. ~ A412 talk! 05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source analysis is vague at best. Why is Phoenixmag not reliable? How are 4 paragraphs of coverage purely on the topic not "in depth"? [16] is also quite in-depth, I've no idea why it's marked otherwise. The analysis ignores [17] which appears to be reliable, in-depth and independent. I just don't see how the GNG bar isn't met. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the Phoenixmag piece is that it is a promotional for the show. The Phoenix Flag piece is a friendly interview. The downtown Devil piece is another puff piece. None of the three article represent significant analysis of the work, just the artist's ideas about his work. None of the articles present a NPV or contribute to notability.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating the source table, @WomenArtistUpdates. This paper:[18] is a a journal article written by the subject of the article. It does not contribute to notability, so that should be changed in the source table.
As to the Phoenix Mag piece, it's a "Preview" for the show which is like a press release. It's promo for his upcoming show. It's not a serious analysis of his work. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The source analysis table is too opinionated (and dismissive of other opinions expressed above) to be taken seriously this late in the discussion. I stand by my original 'Keep' assessment, and want to thank the article's subject for participating here transparently. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone can make a source analysis table or rewrite an article to bring it up to notable. I feel the WP:BURDEN at this point is with those who think this individual should have an article. Best. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you, WomenArtistUpdates, for putting in the work to create the source assessment table. I disagree with Jclemens. As long as this discussion is open, it is not too "late in the discussion" for editors to participate, and I'll say a collaborative project works best when we consider all collaborators are "to be taken seriously." Elspea756 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elspea756! I would like to add that I am not late to the discussion. I !voted delete on March 11th. I decided to create a source assessment table after this had been relisted again. I don't find the arguments FOR the article to be persuasive. No changes have been made to the article. The article isn't focused on his game development, however it is being asked that the article should exist because WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Seems like there's not any support for his art work. The subject himself agrees. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice to a recreation as a stub based on reliable sources by a non-COI editor. In terms of notability the subject is borderline, but the article is essentially a non-neutral autobiography ("In 2010 he made the bold decision to leave the gaming industry behind and pursue his new calling as a Techspressionist artist"), and needs deletion and recreation from the ground up. Sandstein 10:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out needed edits is not a reason to delete an article (have edited the sentence that concerned you and other encyclopedic language). Many editors above have reasons to Keep, so this easily fits my essay WP:SHADOWOFKEEP: "If a large percentage of experienced commenting editors find value within an article, category, or the encyclopedia's other forms of transmitting information, then Wikipedia's readers should continue to benefit from that same value". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is even part of the WP:TNT essay: "When you see this as an argument to delete, don't give up. If you can repair the article in a timely manner, then you've neatly refuted that the article is irreparable. If you can't repair it in a timely manner, then this is the simplest argument to refute at WP:DRV; after all, they said it couldn't be fixed and you fixed it." BOZ (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the analyses by WAU and others. Not seeing a GNG pass here that doesn't require weakening our tolerance of non-independent material. JoelleJay (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude (building)

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

This was a plan that never actually happened. The plan had some coverage, but not enough, and I am not sure how ambiguous a name like this is for a tall building. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My sense is it needs another source to be clearly notable. It's not completely non-notable and it may already be notable, but this is one of those really grey zone articles. SportingFlyer T·C 14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if those "proper" references can be located. Otherwise, it looks like this Keep vote is nullified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Ironically the additional coverage you would need to find in order to keep the article is a source explaining the cancellation of the building project, and assessing the significance of the project's failure. All the coverage currently cited in the article are essentially speculative WP:CRYSTALBALL claims simply repeating what the developers were saying, which turned out not to come true. In its current state, it is a misleading article that does not belong on Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above, actual analysis of known available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Couldn't find enough sources, but draftification may be preferred; however the notability is dubious. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 21:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a 2023–2024 discussion on Skyscrapercity.com about the abandoned building project (with photos} and mention of a nascent new development taking its place, but it's in a discussion forum which has been blacklisted by Wikipedia, not a reliable source we can cite. (If you are curious, search for "Kotte | Baili Mix Development |Floors, Height-TBA| (Previous 96 Iconic Tower-Abondoned)".) At the moment the best WP:ATD that I can think of would be to merge to Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present). But since we haven't found any sources yet that specifically explain the abandonment of the building project, none of the content here seems that useful in the context of that article. To Ouro's point, another alternative would be to mention it in the article Cricket in Sri Lanka. But that would be like a sentence and it would still be preferable to have a source verifying that the project was proposed and planned but later canceled...which I haven't found yet in ProQuest (although there is one 2017 Euroweek / Global Capital article about the asset bubble which mentions it in passing but not in a terribly meaningful way). As a side note, the former developer of the failed building project is using the existence of this Wikipedia article as a proof point in its portfolio (scroll to the bottom of that page). The responsible thing for Wikipedia to do is to delete. If the new development actually materialises and there is coverage, a new article could be created then; future sources might even mention the past failed building project. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Energy

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

There is a Turkish company called Atlas Energy (Atlas Enerji in Turkish) but this one does not seem to have enough sources to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Paramakalyani College

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

This is one of 65 colleges affiliated to the Mononmaniam Sundarar University. I cannot find anything of particular note about the College (except what it says on its own website). Newhaven lad (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators – Heroes of the Colosseum

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

WP:EVENT/WP:GNG concerns: fairly run-of-the-mill type of temporary travelling museum exhibition. Most relevant online sources I've found are primary sources (museums/exhibition organiser) or opinion pieces largely from Nine Entertainment (WP:RSEDITORIAL, WP:BOMBARDMENT). Fork99 (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Aazim

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

Poet doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV thus fails WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Israel–Lebanon relations#Alleged spying arrests in Lebanon. With socks and other nonsense discounted, consensus is clear Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali al-Jarrah

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

As noted by another user, coverage does not extend beyond arrest and legal consequences. Significant coverage implies that the subject has been featured in multiple sources over a period of time, contributing to a well-rounded biography.

Blocked for abusive use of accounts. gidonb (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails to demonstrate the subject's notability beyond a single event that lacks significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources Peacefulparrot5 (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) - Struck, Peacefulparrot5 is the nominator (unsigned).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the IP's 4th edit. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FortunateSons, user also nominated the article anonymously without signing. I would not be surprised if all opinions above are by the same person. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would be a gross violation of the rules. It would make sense based on the voting pattern, which is somewhat suspicious. FortunateSons (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sure is a gross violation of our rules! gidonb (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America Cultural Center

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

This building in Argentina article has zero references to establish notability. While it contains interesting details, the tone is generally promotional. After searching, found a few social media, and mentions with similar names in other countries, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific building. Article was created by a new user on 4 November 2009 (their only contribution to Wikipedia). Article was PROD on February 6, 2020, then De-prod on February 9. JoeNMLC (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Microsoft CryptoAPI with history preserved if a merger is needed. There isn't consensus for one here, but no one is contesting the merge with an argument that the material needs removed from the project-just that it's not suitable as an article. Star Mississippi 01:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CurveBall

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, the last coverage of this particular security exploit was in 2020 and it has effectively been forgotten since. As it currently stands I do not think it is notable enough for a standalone entry. Sohom (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. This article would focus more on how SpaceX has popularized Mars colonization again. It will take a lot of effort to remove speculation from this article, but alas, it can be done. It is a notable topic. (non-admin closure)‎ CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars

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

This article has deviated from its original purpose and is a good example of how Wikipedia's live documentation of history can go haywire sometimes. Originally, back in 2013, this is a place SpaceX Mars vehicle proposal named "Mars Colonial Transporter" ([37]). After that, there are multiple iterations of this concept which is best described at SpaceX Starship design history. Later on, around 2020 ([38]), this article list all SpaceX mars mission proposals and vehicles to go along with it. But by 2024, I've rewritten this article to try to emphasize about the relationship between SpaceX and Mars, because the launch vehicles have already being written about at SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Red Dragon, but I stopped doing so when I realized that this article will be filled with original research and press releases information. I think this article should be redirected or at the very least refactored in some way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep. Those who argued for a Merge made a good argument but there are disputes about which generation article this article might be appropriately Merged to which raises enough uncertainty that I'm closing this as Keep since editors seem to believe that the sources for this article are more than adequate. Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gyat

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

Fails WP:NOPAGE in my view, and should be redirected to the entry at List of Generation Z slang. Seemingly all reliable sources documenting this word do so in the context of providing brief explanations of what the word is (presumably for an audience of confused parents of Gen Alpha children), and lack substantial cultural or etymological analysis, making expansion prospects for the article dim. Mach61 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That List of Generation Z slang is fascinating, if not a tad disorienting. Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there isn't a consensus here and a broader discussion on when terms should have stand-alone articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge camps. This is just an impression but I think there are some editors who are focusing on the meaning of the word and not on whether there is adequate sourcing to establish notability which should be the primary determinant of whether or not there is a standalone article, not on the nature of the term. At this point, it's either a No consensus closure or one more relist and I'm going with the latter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Darwin (given name). Star Mississippi 01:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deorwine

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

I had turned this article into a redirect to Rohan, Middle-earth#Horses and warfare on January 12 of this year, which was undone on February 29. I can't see evidence of notability for this name; it fails WP:NNAME and the sources I could find are limited to baby name websites and dictionaries, so it may also be a WP:NOTDICT fail. Alternatively, the redirect could be restored, or it could be redirected to Darwin (given name) or Darwin (surname). AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was undone, because as already documented, it's an Old (ancient) Anglo-Saxon/English name predating (by hundreds/thousands years) usage by JRR Tolkien and other fantasy authors/creators that in fact use it (such as Warhammer 40,000). Wikipedia isn't a fandom encyclopaedia, so real-world takes precedence. Nevertheless, I think it'd be okay to redirect to Darwin (given name), as in its history there were only forenames (such as Robin of Locksley) with people using place names and professions at the end, which some became surnames later.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 07:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. I just saw that Déorwine redirected to that, but in hindsight I should’ve just redirected to one of the Darwins. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Bachelor (Australian season 1). History remains under the redirect if a merger is desired. Star Mississippi 01:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Heinrich

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

Appears to fall under WP:BLP1E, and WP:INHERITED from Tim Robards & The Bachelor (Australian season 1). Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Bachelor (Australian TV series)#Seasons where the table under season 1 already includes any relevant details; merge to The Bachelor (Australian season 1) would be an alternative. Agree with WP:BLP1E, and WP:INHERITED. Klbrain (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added these references to the article and also improved existing references.
  • Doreian, Robyn (12 February 2022). "Anna Heinrich: 'Self-belief has been a lifelong struggle for me'". The Sydney Morning Herald. Nine Entertainment. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
  • Spira, Madi (24 October 2019). "Trial By Kyle: Everything you need to know". Who. Are Media. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
  • Coy, Bronte (23 March 2022). "'Can't do this': Anna Heinrich breaks down as she quits SAS Australia". news.com.au. News Corp Australia. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 10:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Opinion has changed over the course of a week. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DarkwebSTREAMER

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

WP:TOOSOON for an unpublished, previewed-but-not-otherwise-announced, video game. Two of the four sources are the same author, and the other two are heavily interview quotes.

My preferred result here is draftify, which I'd do unilaterally except that the article is older than 90d per WP:DRAFTIFY. ~ A412 talk! 05:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Australia. ~ A412 talk! 05:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Probably should have done it myself in January. Instead I paced a source analysis on the article talk (does not meet GNG) and replaced the notability banner that the creator removed. No new sources forthcoming and I think it is WP:TOOSOON. Per that essay, draftify would be a suitable WP:ATD. Failing agreement to draftify, this would be a delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The page creator has now added these addtional sources to the page. [1][2][3] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite adding 3 sources, there's still nothing in the article on the page, of course. Deletion is not for cleanup, but this is a page that really isn't ready to be out of draft. Looking at the three added sources, nothing in the PCGamer or RPG site articles really demonstrates notability. A mention in the New York Times is more significant. It is mentioned in the context of an article about a number of games that are mourning the Internet's olden times. As such, it is just an example, and again, I remain unconvinced of notability here. But I think it definitely suggest potential. I still think this is WP:TOOSOON but think it is good evidence that notability may be attained, and that working on the article in draft would not be time wasted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Video Games Are Mourning the Old, Weird, Clunky Internet - The New York Times". web.archive.org. 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-03-17.
  2. ^ Chamberlain, Paige. "Darkweb Streamer Preview - Can you earn new viewers and keep your sanity? | RPG Site". www.rpgsite.net. Retrieved 2024-03-17.
  3. ^ published, Jody Macgregor (2023-11-30). "Horror game darkwebSTREAMER contains an infinite procedurally generated internet and that sure sounds horrifying to me". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-03-17.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Maybe there is some argument for TOOSOON. However, once it's created (with sources meeting GNG), in the absence of a guideline that says a notable videogame in development but not released is unsuitable for inclusion, it's "TOOLATE" to delete, in my view — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Israel–Lebanon relations#Alleged spying arrests in Lebanon. With socks and other nonsense discounted, consensus is clear Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali al-Jarrah

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

As noted by another user, coverage does not extend beyond arrest and legal consequences. Significant coverage implies that the subject has been featured in multiple sources over a period of time, contributing to a well-rounded biography.

Blocked for abusive use of accounts. gidonb (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails to demonstrate the subject's notability beyond a single event that lacks significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources Peacefulparrot5 (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) - Struck, Peacefulparrot5 is the nominator (unsigned).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the IP's 4th edit. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FortunateSons, user also nominated the article anonymously without signing. I would not be surprised if all opinions above are by the same person. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would be a gross violation of the rules. It would make sense based on the voting pattern, which is somewhat suspicious. FortunateSons (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sure is a gross violation of our rules! gidonb (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Gerstenberger

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

All the sources given are primary sources from the subject's organisation, except for a mention in a local newspaper I am unable to verify. Gerstenberger's opinion is also cited in this CBC article as one of a plethora of Hamilton residents' comments on steel production. However, in my opinion neither of these secondary sources are notable mentions, and Gerstenberger's role as president of a local union and minor communist party do not seem to be notable enough on their own. Yue🌙 04:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ignatius High School Gumla

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. No reliable sources found despite Google search including news, books, and news archive. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekram Hossain

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

There is no claim to notability. The present sources show that the subject has not met WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Stephens

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

Doesn't satisfy even WP:ANYBIO, citations only talk about the fashion week and lack of full coverage for the subject. Htanaungg (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Méhkerék. Govvy makes a solid case for town > league and I've gone with that. The decision to redirect is an admin close, but target is an editorial discussion and can be changed if needed at RFD or other channels. Star Mississippi 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Méhkeréki SE

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

So I am not really familiar with football topics in Wikipedia. But something tells me the football team of a village populated by 2,085 people is not notable. This article has two sources one of which is a general Hungarian football directory and the other is the team's official website. I don't think this football team is notable. Super Ψ Dro 00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Topic isn't listed on Nemzeti Bajnokság III, so we appear to have a WP:RASTONISH problem with the suggested redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Modern Russia

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

This article has been tagged with unresolved referencing issues for 11 years. I think it's now time to evaluate it for deletion.

The article currently has one reference. I've scanned Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com and can only find one additional reference in WP:RS, here [56] where it's mentioned in one sentence as the organizer of a conference.

It notes some WP:N "advisors," however, gives no source to WP:V if they really are "advisors" and that probably doesn't matter anyway due to WP:NOTINHERITED.

It's fashionable nowadays to start "think tanks" that are basically blogs or white paper publishing platforms and this appears to be one of those. (Insofar as it's something like that, it seems to be fine and might even be WP:RS, but that's separate from question of its N.) Its Form 990 [57] indicates it has a single employee who appears to be a grad student at Stony Brook University. Chetsford (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC); edited 06:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. demonstrated to meet GNG by sources provided. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Perlow

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

Not seeing how WP:BASIC has been met for this individual. Seems to be a lack of independent sources that I can find. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but a user has requested reopening the discussion as they believe they have sources to back up notability claims.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the above are true, except for the part about overall lack of sources. I failed to check old newspapers in websites such as Newspapers com. After the sources produced herebelow by Silver seren from that website, I find the proper suggestion to be a Keep for the article. -The Gnome (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perlow has been all over the news for decades for various activities and online ventures. SilverserenC 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn per WP:SK1(a) with no delete/redirect !votes. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Asphalt

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

Can't find any additional sources beyond the one in the article. Given the age of the Red Asphalt videos, sources may exist in print, but I cannot speak for certain on that. Either way, doesn't meet GNG as it stands right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to withdraw for now per sources found above. Still a stub that could do with improvement, but notability seems to be met for now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nad's

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

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCOMPANY. Refs are routine news, product launches, growth reports, in violation of WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ROUTINE - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. After 3 relistings, I doubt that there is any more participation that can be expected and this consensus seems clear. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major achievements in figure skating by nation

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

I don't see how this article doesn't violate WP:SYNTHESIS. Ignoring the blatant MOS:ACCESS issues with the tables (which I could address), these tables constitute original research and an assemblage of indiscriminate statistics. The very first table, for example, simply shows that Russia has won a gold medal in each of the listed events, but not how many, and then an unsourced total on the right column. Additionally, synchronized skating is (unfortunately) a separate entity from other figure skating disciplines. This is another example of someone treating Wikipedia like a figure skating fan wiki. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think these tables constitute a “nice layout”? I think they’re appalling. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using a cell phone or are you zoomed in too much on the article? How is it different than any other table on Wikipedia? Dream Focus 23:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are all sorts of MOS violations. I am willing to correct the tables, but I don't want to do any more work on them until this AFD has been decided. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please show some sources that prove that this article is notable and not just a SYNTH- better than claiming sources exist, please demonstrate some decent and appropriate sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article links to the official websites showing the information already! Dream Focus 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This claim appears to be false. Or which web pages exactly of those currently linked under Major_achievements_in_figure_skating_by_nation#References contain these country rankings as shown in the article? Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple math is not Synth. Not does it say its ranking them in an official capacity. If that's your only complaint, then just remove the No. column. Dream Focus 06:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The SYNTH concerns raised above weren't primarily about the counting across those many different websites, but there are likely to be non-trivial decisions involved there too.
    In any case I'm glad that we appear to agree that the rankings are not official, i.e. that this article is making proclamations in Wikipedia voice of who the all-time top country in each discipline and even overall is. That is highly problematic, also given how contested such nation rankings in sports can be at times. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clear nom.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOTSTATS. Such content belongs on a fan wiki, not here. Let'srun (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist Democracy Index (2019)

The Economist Democracy Index (2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also:

The Economist Democracy Index (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Economist Democracy Index (2021) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Economist Democracy Index (2022) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The pages fail the following:

  • Wikipedia:Copyrights, as it's a copyright violation (the material is copyrighted)—see the essay Wikipedia:Copyright in lists for an explanation of copyright applying to statistics such as these: calculations which are themselves based upon numbers created by value judgements
  • WP:LISTN—a listing of statistics derived from one source is still a list and as such it must meet the notability criteria for stand-alone lists, and while The Economist Democracy Index is a notable topic, an individual report for, say, the year 2022 is not notable; there is some coverage but it is WP:ROUTINE
  • WP:NOTSTATS—while policy records the practice of splitting off otherwise excessive listings of statistics into separate pages and summarizing them in the main article, this is only something that can be done, but whether it should be done in a given case is a different question. In this case, this is simply a republishing of the statistics from the yearly report by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the pages are based on a single source, and people interested in this are better served reading that source, which has additional explanatory content of its own, for each year, so inclusion of these statistics individually does not serve an encyclopedic purpose; this is different from the example given in the policy where readers can compare different polls from different pollsters etc. (there is an encyclopedically interesting collation going on, and that is lacking here). —Alalch E. 00:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Social science, and Lists. —Alalch E. 00:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and REVDEL – these are clear copyright violations because they are all based on creative content invented and published by The Economist, which cannot be found or looked up anywhere else because they are a result of The Economist's proprietary index "based on 60 indicators, grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture". It is mass copyvio and should be WP:REVDELed. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Afd is probably the wrong venue; the four pages should be hidden using {{subst:copyvio}}, and then logged at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 January 8, following the instructions at WP:CPN#Suspected or complicated infringement (that's the more conservative approach; I actually think it qualifies for speedy {{db-g12}} as blatant and obvious violation). Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTSTATS; you mentioned that it is a copyright violation, it should otherwise been G12'ed rather than revdelling. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 20:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the requisite URLs to fill out the db-g12 for 2020 and 2022, and by the time I find them the AfD will conclude as "delete". See WP:DELREASON#2 for how copyright violations are the classic deletion reason, irrespective of process used. If any admin wants to G12-delete all three remaining articles on their own accord, they're very welcome to. I agree that revdel is pontless for an article that should be deleted and I only requested it to test Mathglot's suggestion that it's needed. @Nthep: Hello and thank you for speedily deleting one of these pages. Does revdelling play any role here? —Alalch E. 22:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Special:Diff/1214461808 to understand why I did not just tag all four pages with G12 -- one editor has now actually removed the tag saying "Looks OK to me". Which is exactly what I had expected would happen... —Alalch E. 06:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alalch E. I did revdel at first then realised there was nothing left, so G12'd the whole thing. Nthep (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Economist Democracy Index (2019) has been speedied but the rest of the bundled nomination has not so I'm leaving this discussion open. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOVO Solingen

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

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCOMPANY. Refs are routine news, product launches, growth reports, in violation of WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ROUTINE - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These are the only articles that I can find on google when I search DOVO Solingen. Although WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally no guarantee that the subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I have seen no indication that it meets requirements. Additionally, of the 6 sources shown on the Wiki page, 4 of them are sourced directly from the DOVO website, 1 is apparently from a book I can't view, and another is from thelocalde. Please do correct me if you see otherwise but I see no proof of enduring or present notability. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participants in order to close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_17&oldid=1214196973"