Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Explicit (talk | contribs) at 23:43, 18 July 2022 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdisaster.com (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< July 10 July 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yousif bin Abdulrahman Fakhro

[edit]
Yousif bin Abdulrahman Fakhro (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)

Person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. No sources; possible fake biography Oliver Virk (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saud Kanoo

[edit]
Saud Kanoo (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)

Person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies Oliver Virk (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qais Al Khonji

[edit]
Qais Al Khonji (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)

Definitely not here: WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO Oliver Virk (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoda Abdallah

[edit]
Hoda Abdallah (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)

Definitely not here: WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO Oliver Virk (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Previous AFD was about a different individual with the same name. Also a note that "articles contains no english citations" is not a valid reason, on its own, for article deletion Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Tan

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

Article contains no english citations and does not meet basic criteria for WP:NBIO. No WP:RS could be identified to substantial much of the material as presented. Appears to be written as a self-promotional WP:BROCHURE Volcom95 (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tricky one, this. She is clearly an established anchor for Sinovision, a significant broadcaster in the US Chinese media market, but she has little or no coverage in her own right that would meet WP:NBIO. The references in the article, which are not inline, don't support notability for our purposes. I searched in English under "Lin Tan" and "Tan Lin" and in Chinese under "谭琳" and "sinovision" but could find only routine coverage, such as videos of her programming, not specifically about her. So it's delete. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaccheus Polius

[edit]
Zaccheus Polius (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has played 22 times for his country and scored five goals. This new revisionism of what is notable for international footballers debases wikipedia. Of course international footballers in big countries have more press coverage - not rocket science to see why. Pretty dispiriting stuff to be honest. Zanoni (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a specific reference over his 'player of the tournament' status in 2014. Zanoni (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanoni:, I agree with what you said, also I feel like Wikipedia should have a grandfather clause so that new guidelines only apply to the present/future and past articles under past guidelines. I feel like people shouldn't create articles that satisfy guidelines knowing they could be deleted a few years later because of some guideline change. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MazaCoin

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
MazaCoin (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)

Cryptocoin with limited adoption and even less press coverage. Still appears to be in development. Regardless fails WP:GNG and does not show lasting coverage Slywriter (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Alcantara, Christopher; Dick, Caroline (2017-05-08). "Decolonization in a Digital Age: Cryptocurrencies and Indigenous Self-Determination in Canada". Canadian Journal of Law and Society. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cls.2017.1.

      The article notes: "In early 2014, a number of media outlets in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom published a series of stories about how a Native American tribe, the Oglala Lakota Nation, had adopted something called MazaCoin as its national currency. MazaCoin, a digital currency, was to act as a medium of exchange in and beyond the Lakota Nation. ... MazaCoin, according to its developer, Payu Harris, was going to dramatically increase the Lakota Nation’s autonomy and financial wealth. ... Shortly after these news reports came out, Oglala Lakota Nation officials quickly distanced themselves from Harris and MazaCoin. Some leaders proclaimed that they had never heard of MazaCoin while others remarked that they were simply working with the developers to explore its potential for addressing their community’s needs (Vigna 2014). More recently, however, it has become evident that the Oglala Lakota Nation will likely never adopt MazaCoin as its national currency. MazaCoin's developers have made it clear on their website that they now plan to expand the scope of the cryptocurrency beyond its original purpose (https://mazacoin.org)."

    2. Tekobbe, Cindy; McKnight, John Carter (2016-10-03). "Indigenous cryptocurrency: Affective capitalism and rhetorics of sovereignty". First Monday. Vol. 21, no. 10. doi:10.5210/fm.v21i10.6955. Archived from the original on 2022-05-04. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The abstract notes: "This paper examines the rise and fall of one alt-finance system: MazaCoin, a Bitcoin variant intended to benefit the Oglala Lakota of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The story of MazaCoin is one of an attempt to unite two apparently divergent sociotechnical assemblages: (1) a libertarian, elite technology of cryptocurrency, and (2) a richly traditional indigenous community with a deep desire for cultural survivance, bound up in a precarious economy left behind in the wake of more than a century of genocide."

    3. Kristof, Andras (2015). "National Cryptocurrencies". In Chuen, David Lee Kuo (ed.). Handbook of Digital Currency: Bitcoin, Innovation, Financial Instruments, and Big Data. London: Academic Press. pp. 76–77. ISBN 978-0-12-802117-0. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.

      The book notes that MazaCoin has a market cap of $64,112, its current value is $0.000126, and its creation date was 27 February 2014. The book notes: "MazaCoin is one of the most intriguing examples of how a cryptocurrency can be successfully introduced and adopted. Founder Payu Harris wanted the coin to demonstrate greater fiscal autonomy for the Native American communities. There was no deliberate airdrop of the currency, and the amounts were regulated and released at fixed intervals, under the stewardship of Kimitsu Asset Management. Additional premined coins are either withheld or placed in a trust fund to maintain stability of the MazaCoin. The way in which it was publicized was also very organized, with good supply of information, regular news updates, and constant redevelopment of tools such as wallets and hardware receivers. One of the possibl ereasons why MazaCoin has been more successful than most other national coins is that it belongs to a sovereign state and not a legislated nation with its own fiat currency. This means that it appeals to a specific demographic that does not have to compete with an established common currency, and the coin appears to fulfill a previously unmet need."

    4. Landry, Alysa (2014-03-03). "9 Questions Surrounding MazaCoin, the Lakota CryptoCurrency: Answered". Indian Country Today. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "John Carter McKnight, a sociology research associate at England’s Lancaster University, cautions against the use of cryptocurrencies. McKnight is researching alternative currencies for tribal nations. ... McKnight agrees with the ideas behind cryptocurrency – keeping money local and promoting financial and technical literacy – but he does not believe the MazaCoin is a good move for the Lakota Nation. “Alternative finance arrangement for tribes is brilliant and can be transformative,” he said. “Building sovereignty is a good idea, but for a community that doesn’t have money to blow, I don’t know that I would consider cryptocurrency a responsible decision.”"

    5. Vigna, Paul (2014-03-07). "Lakota Indian Promotes New Digital Currency, Mazacoin". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "But one Lakota Indian hopes his nation will take a different approach: he hopes to make a digital currency the tribe's official currency. It's called mazacoin, and the man who developed it, Payu Harris, wants to make it the official currency of the Lakota Nation, a semi-autonomous North American Indian reservation in South Dakota. Officially launched in February, its market cap of $3.3 million places it 20th among alternative currencies (there are more than 200 "alt-coins," although most have marginal significance)."

    6. Jeffries, Adrianne (2014-03-05). "Native American tribes adopt Bitcoin-like currency, prepare to battle US government. MazaCoin could be what the Lakota people need to boost them out of longstanding poverty, but is it legal?". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "While the leadership of the Lakota nation has signed off on adopting MazaCoin as a national currency, there is resistance within the ranks. Digital currencies are not always an easy sell, especially to older generations who are not accustomed to using apps constantly throughout the day. A further complication is that not all tribal members have internet access or smartphones, which means Harris has to develop a paper wallet system where members’ MazaCoins are held in cold storage at a central location like a bank. In theory members can walk into the bank, get their MazaCoins in a paper wallet that can be processed by reservation businesses, then return the balance to digital storage at the bank before driving home."

    7. Vincent, James (2014-03-03). "MazaCoin: Native American tribe adopts bitcoin derivative as 'national currency'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "A confederation of seven Sioux tribes in the US have created a digital currency similar to bitcoin and adopted it as their official national tender. The Oglala Lakota Nation (notable members of which include Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse; the chieftain who secured a victory over General George Armstrong Custer at the Battle of Little Bighorn) has launched MazaCoin in the hopes that it will help to lift the tribe out of poverty. ... MazaCoin is what is known as a "fork" of bitcoin derivative ZetaCoin, although unlike bitcoin it is inflationary, meaning that new coins can be mined over time. The Oglala Lakota Nation has pre-mined 25 million MazaCoins to serve as a national reserve with another 25 million coins set aside for a Tribal Trust, an organization that will issue grants to local businesses and tribe members."

    8. Ramos, Jairo (2014-03-07). "A Native American Tribe Hopes Digital Currency Boosts Its Sovereignty". NPR. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "In South Dakota, the Oglala Lakota Nation has become the first Native American tribe to launch its own form of virtual currency. Payu Harris, its creator, calls it mazacoin. ... Pete Earle, chief economist of Humint, a firm that develops crypto-currencies, says mazacoin can provide the Lakota Tribe with a new spectrum of economic possibilities. ... Earle says the Lakota could even use mazacoin as a way of rewarding outside groups that support the tribe's best interests. But he points out that for the currency to have any value, there has to first be a market for it."

    9. Gaylord, Chris (2014-03-22). "Good Reads: From teacher fundraisers, to an atomic timekeeper, to MazaCoin". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.

      The article notes: "But programmer and native American activist Payu Harris has a plan to lift his tribe out of this hardship: a Bitcoin-style digital currency called MazaCoin that he designed specifically for the Lakota. Merchants across the reservation will accept MazaCoin for everyday transactions. The currency may be purchased with dollars and traded through smart phones or computers."

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

    Cunard (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interestingly virtually nothing listed above is covered in the article. Instead, we have sources linked to the promoter of the coin giving an entirely different viewpoint on it. Additionally, note that all coverage is in a very short time frame and the one 2015 article, uses the promoter as a source. I still think this is a fad coin that got a brief moment of coverage with no lasting notability, but will look to incorporate the above to give an accurate representation to readers of the coin. Slywriter (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alcantara & Dick 2017 and Tekobbe & McKnight 2016 were published in the peer-reviewed academic journals Canadian Journal of Law and Society and First Monday. They provide a longer-term view of MazaCoin than the 2014 articles and show that it has received sustained coverage.

    The Alcantara source notes, "In early 2014, a number of media outlets in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom published a series of stories about how a Native American tribe, the Oglala Lakota Nation, had adopted something called MazaCoin as its national currency. ... More recently, however, it has become evident that the Oglala Lakota Nation will likely never adopt MazaCoin as its national currency."

    The Tekobbe source notes, "This paper examines the rise and fall of one alt-finance system: MazaCoin, a Bitcoin variant intended to benefit the Oglala Lakota of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation."

    Thank you for your plan to incorporate these sources into the article. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2020-11 (closed as ✓ keep) ← 2018-03 (closed as No Outcome) ← 2014-06 (closed as ✓ keep) ← 2014-04 (closed as ✓ keep)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nelogica

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure article. scope_creepTalk 12:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote the page. It seems to me that it meets the primary criteria in WP:NCORP: there is substantial coverage of the subject (whole articles about it, sources are cited in the page, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) in multiple reliable sources completely independent of the subject and of each other, such as Zero Hora, Exame, O Globo and Endeavor_(non-profit) (see aforementioned links). The coverage spans at least 4 years (2019-2022). Seems enough? Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage is completely routine and fails various parts of WP:NCORP. For example the first ref is an interviews, failing WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND. The refs are woeful for this startup. It is not coverage, its routine press-release fodder. The rest are the same including the non-rs blog. scope_creepTalk 20:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. The first link is not an interview, although it contains interview questions. The other links are not press releases by the subject of the article, they are independent articles on national newspapers and national magazines. The "blog" one is a specialized column in a newspaper, if that doesn't count well there are various other articles... Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What ones exactly? Please present them so we can evaluate them per WP:THREE. scope_creepTalk 23:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat that I don't believe that this meets WP:NCORP yet, but it seems to have more legs to stand on than the standard crypto start-up. There is this educational text book that uses the company's data throughout.[1] I couldn't see anything in the preview but I would expect there to be some elaboration around the source of the data. There is this paper that evaluates the company's software,[2] and there is this paper in a peer-reviewed journal that is based on data from the company.[3] Not WP:SIGCOV but enough to suggest potential. SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Eduardo Koiti Matsura (2020). Comprar Ou Vender? (in Brazilian Portuguese). Saraiva Educação S.A. ISBN 9788557173415.
  2. ^ Stoiber, Christina; Ceneda, Davide; Wagner, Markus; Schetinger, Victor; Gschwandtner, Theresia; Streit, Marc; Miksch, Silvia; Aigner, Wolfgang (March 2022). "Perspectives of visualization onboarding and guidance in VA". Visual Informatics. 6 (1): 68–8. doi:10.1016/j.visinf.2022.02.005.
  3. ^ da Silva, Roberto; Zembrzuski, Marcelo; Correa, Fabio C.; Lamb, Luis C. (1 December 2010). "Stock markets and criticality in the current economic crisis". Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 389 (23). Elsevier: 5460–5467. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2010.08.021.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have an interview with the founders, several press-releases, company manuals and 3 non-rs links. The references above are no different. The whole things fails WP:NCORP. There is not single secondary source amongst the lot of it. Its all advertising and PR. scope_creepTalk 23:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the analysis above is partially flawed. **Ref 1** is for the number of employees only, how is the company itself not a reliable source for that? **Ref 2** for instance is not an interview with the founders during conferences, it's an long article about the company history, which *includes* an interview. This has already been pointed out in this discussion before, but ignored by the OP of this request. As for **Ref 3** I am not sure what the OP means by "press release" in this case (I do not understand the significance of the term in this context). The company received significant funding (billions) in a series from VCs and other funds and the ref is a specialized website covering it and also talking about the company history. This was not the only source to cover this event, OP failed to mention [7], a national magazine. This event received more coverage than is mentioned in the article, as it was not necessary as there were already reliable sources for it, but for completion here is more sources that covered this event found in a quick search: [8] [9] Ref 4 is indeed about the building, and used to reference that only... The rest of the analysis I would say is correct, it's press coverage spawning several years of various topics related to the company (starting operation in Europe, etc) from multiple reliable sources, including national newspapers and magazines (e.g. [10]). Some refs are indeed technical details used to reference some parts of the article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I do not have much to add here, just going through some old discussions still open and trying to add to the consensus where appropriate. The reasons for deletion have been discussed in detail by several users now and I agree that the lack of secondary sources means the criteria at NCORP cannot be established. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the references above:
Ref 7 above fails WP:CORPDEPTH, company valuations. It from a press-release.
Ref 8 is a press-release annoucing an acquisition. Acquisitions are routine coverage that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. From a press-release.
Ref 9 Nelogica, owner of Profit platform, is valued at $2.9bn, says website Press-release. fail WP:CORPDEPTH
Ref 10 More acquisition news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

All of it is driven by press-releases and all of primary. scope_creepTalk 10:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. per identified sourcing Star Mississippi 17:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get Played

[edit]
Get Played (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 sources found in a WP:BEFORE. Current sources don't seem reliable. Doesn't seem to be a notable podcast. Tagged for notability 3+ years. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following are useful in demonstrating notability: The A.V. Club article about the show's episode on Sonic appears to contain more than a trivial mention (it contains more than 100 words).[1] Both the Vulture articles appear to be more than a trivial mention.[2][3] The IndieWire article appears to be more than a trivial mention.[4]
The following were possibly useful in demonstrating notability: The A.V. Club article about the Native American Heritage Month episode doesn't appear to be independent of the the podcast, but the Indian Country Today source might count.[5][6] I'm not sure if Vents Magazine is reliable considering the about pages says the magazine is "run by a team of dedicated volunteers."[7] The Paste Magazine article appears to be potentially circular in that it references the Wikipedia page.[8] Podcasting for Dummies contains a short paragraph about the podcast, but it's probably considered a trivial mention.[9]
The following were not useful in demonstrating notability, but I thought I'd mention them anyway: The Digital Trends article and the Kotuku Australia article appear to only contain trivial mentions of the show (they contain less than 100 words).[10][11] An article by Matthew Girard was republished in digital publications such as the Woodford Times, Victorville Daily Press, and the Pontiac Daily Leader as well as quite a few print publications such as The Naples Daily News, however, it doesn't contain any more than a trivial mention.[12][13][14][15] The Podcast Host article appears to be written by a contributor and the site appears to be a blog.[16] The G-Loot website and the Stitcher article appear to be blogs.[17][18] The Stuff.tv article is sponsored.[19] Giant Bomb published a primary source that could be useful, but doesn't contribute to notability.[20]

References

  1. ^ Jakes, Dan (2019-07-01). "Twelve Podcasts to Check Out This Week". The A.V. Club. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  2. ^ Kramer, Mark (2019-08-01). "This Week in Comedy Podcasts: Filling the Void With Vanessa Bayer". Vulture. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  3. ^ Rainey, Tom (2019-12-05). "This Week in Comedy Podcasts: A New Show From Mitra Jouhari". Vulture. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  4. ^ Greene, Steve (2019-12-16). "The Fifty Best Podcast Episodes of 2019". IndieWire. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  5. ^ Clift, Joey (2019-12-03). "I Celebrated Native American Heritage Month by Ruining a Comedy Podcast". The A.V. Club. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  6. ^ Schilling, Vincent (January 10, 2020). "'People Want to Hear Our Jokes': Native Comedian Joey Clift Once Pursued a Job as a Joke-Cracking TV Weatherman". Indian Country Today. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  7. ^ Morgan, Chris (2021-09-11). "The Podcast That Collapsed Under the Weight of Its Premise". Vents Magazine. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  8. ^ Fox Jr., Kevin (2021-10-21). "The Best Gaming Podcasts in 2021". Paste. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  9. ^ Morris, Tee; Tomasi, Chuck (2020-10-13). Podcasting for Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. p. 341. ISBN 978-1-119-71183-4.
  10. ^ Dove, Jackie; Beaton, Paula (2021-08-20). "The Best Podcasts You Should Listen To in 2022". Digital Trends. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  11. ^ Williams, Leah (2020-01-20). "The Best Gaming Podcasts for 2020". Kotaku Australia. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  12. ^ Girard, Matthew (November 6, 2020). "Podcasts to Listen To: Triple Click and the Best Gaming Podcasts". Woodford Times. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  13. ^ Girard, Matthew (November 5, 2020). "Podcasts to Listen To: Triple Click and the Best Gaming Podcasts". Victorville Daily Press. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  14. ^ Girard, Matthew (November 6, 2020). "Podcasts to Listen To: Triple Click and the Best Gaming Podcasts". Pontiac Daily Leader. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  15. ^ Girard, Matthew (2021-03-15). "Gamertag Radio and the Best Video Game Podcast". The Naples Daily News. pp. D7. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  16. ^ Freeman, Will (2020-09-07). "Top Eleven Video Game Podcasts". The Podcast Host. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  17. ^ "Ten Gaming Podcasts You Should Listen to Today". G-Loot. September 7, 2021. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  18. ^ Stitcher (2021-05-07). "Weekly Recap — 5/7/21". Stitcher Blog. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  19. ^ "Seven Tech Podcasts You Should Be Listening To". Stuff. 2021-09-13. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  20. ^ "How Did This Get Played's Top Ten Games of 2019". Giant Bomb. December 27, 2019. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
  • Keep because the A.V. Club, Vulture, and IndieWire sources demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. The depth of coverage is definitely questionable so if it is determined that the subject is not notable enough for a stand alone article then I think it should be merged or redirected to Earwolf#Comedy_programming. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Earwolf#Comedy programming as a WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per TipsyElephant's response. I would've liked to see at least one in-depth source solely about the podcast but per WP:GNG a subject doesn't need to be the main topic so long as it isn't a trivial mention, and there's enough detail about the podcast to warrant entry on this site. EDIT I also stumbled upon this extra Vulture source listing it as among the best podcasts of 2019, similar to the other lists it was mentioned in. It's 225 words so this along with the other sources should demonstrate a stronger case for notability, and can be used for a decently fleshed out Reception section. To be generous I'm changing my vote to a keep. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The merger proposals didn't convince the later contributors. Sandstein 12:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who memorized the Quran

[edit]
List of people who memorized the Quran (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 believe memorizing the Quran is notable enough to merit a list, thousands of ordinary people memorize the Quran every year. El-Beheri (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: I am not very familiar with this area, so I don't know how common/unremarkable it is to memorize the Coran. One clarifying question: I find it plausible that every year thousands of people would be in the process of memorizing parts of the Coran. However, how many people truly memorize ALL of the Coran? BTW, I think the article would be better titled as List of notable people who memorized the Quran. Thank you.
  • Suggestion: if this list ends up being deleted, I wonder if the alternative would be to make sure that the people listed in it are nested (if not already) in a category of people who memorized the Quran (Hafiz) and then include a link of it in the Hafiz article.
  • Observation: This article's creation dates back to 2006, which I find quite remarkable. The topic does not appear to be fribulous or a prank; it has so far stood the test of time. I'd suggestion caution in deciding to delete it. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are probably thousands of people who memorise the Quran every year, so obviously we'll have to limit ourselves to people who are already famous for other reasons (see my comment below), which does raise the question whether memorising the Quran has much added value in terms of notability. If so, then adding 'notable' to the title seems appropriate, if it wasn't obvious already. And indeed, as I mentioned, it is difficult to verify whether someone has memorised it ALL, and perhaps even beyond the capabilities of Wikipedians. There are Quran memorisation contests, but by far most individuals listed here will not have faced such scrutiny of their claims. As for the category, I had it deleted a few months ago, see my comment below. Finally, the fact that an article has existed for a veeeeeeery looooong time doesn't mean it has a good reason to exist, that is just an appeal to tradition. It could simply mean that we as a Wikipedia community haven't been paying attention and it has slipped through our fingers for a veeeeeeery looooong time; that hardly is a point in favour of an otherwise questionable article. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the difference between this list and the Luxembourg list is that the sports players are notable because they're sports players, whilst memorizing the Quran doesn't give any notoriety. If you remove the sports from sports players, they become ordinary Luxembourgers, if you remove the memorization part, it makes no difference. El-Beheri (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That is a pretty good observation. I guess I'm in favour of Delete now then. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with hafiz. The list of notable huffaz is not particularly long and so there doesn't seem to be a need for a separate article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Category:People who memorized the Quran" was also deleted recently, but for somewhat different reasons, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Category:People who memorized the Quran. At the time, I argued for listifying all RS-supported members of the category, excluding all non-famous people and unsourced entries. At the moment, I am on the fence whether the list should be deleted as well. As User:JBchrch said: "I would add that memorizing sacred texts is a practice in many religions and—as far as I know—people don't become famous or notable for it; as such, it is non-defining." I'm not sure if I follow this line of reasoning. I'll try to make a somewhat random comparison, and you be the judge: why does, say, the List of Luxembourgish sports players pass GNG? Is it the 'Luxembourgish' part? No, not all 0.5 million Luxembourgers are notable. Is it the 'sports players' part? No, not all sports players in the world are notable. Is the combination of 'Luxembourgish' and 'sports players' enough to be included on the list? No, not all Luxembourgish sports players are notable, they need to have their own Wikipedia article first, e.g. personally pass GNG before qualifying for inclusion. So, it becomes evident that neither merely being Luxembourgish, nor merely a sports player, nor both, is enough to personally pass GNG and thus be included on the list. They probably need to be a particularly famous sports player that has won a fair number of prizes or otherwise catch the public eye frequently (not WP:ONEEVENT). 'Luxembourgish' is just a way to group large numbers of famous sports players by nationality. So, how do "people who memorized the Quran" stack up in this equation? They are not famous for being "people", they are probably not famous for "memorising" the Quran either, which would probably fall under WP:ONEEVENT. (Then again, there is a List of people who died climbing Mount Everest, in which people without their own articles can be included if there are RS confirming their membership of the group, so who knows?) If anything, only "the Quran" itself is famous. Huffaz are famous for a bunch of other things, and their accomplishment of memorising the Quran is a fun fact that you can add somewhere in the footnotes of their biography. E.g. memorising the Quran is not part of what Sayyid Qutb, Aurangzeb, Omar Khadr or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan are famous for; they are famous for their influence in politics. Although memorising the Quran may be thought of as some kind of competition, and in that sense could result in people becoming famous just like sports players who win lots of prizes, it usually doesn't happen in that kind of a competitive setting. It is more of a personal achievement of religious piety that happens over the course of several weeks or months of study, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of scrutiny to verify one's claim that one has memorised it. All in all, it is a very strange kind of grouping of people for a list. As said, I'm on the fence, I could see it going both ways. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw I unfortunately don't have the time to take a look at this in detail right now, but I will just note that CFD discussions are based on WP:OC, which calls for practical and intuitive judgment, while AFD discussions are based on WP:GNG, which calls for source-based evidence. JBchrch talk 16:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an encyclopedic topic and certainly runs afoul of WP:NOT (Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit). Some of the sourcing is very sketchy - the entry on Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani is from a defunct website that looks like it was a blog post even when it did exist. How are we to take seriously the assertions that a figure from centuries ago memorized the Quran? Pretty useless list. Wes sideman (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the problem is the article in it's current form, that can certainly be improved; I think it's about the premise itself, which is not noteworthy enough to merit an article of its own. El-Beheri (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on that point as well - I brought it up more to point out that it seems someone or someones are stretching really hard to try to validate the premise. Either way, delete. Wes sideman (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is like a list of people who attended/graduated from a university. Wikipedia is not a directory. Issues related to education should be mentioned on the biographical articles only. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let us start by the most pressing issue - verifiability. Who has verified these people memorised a text? Yes, Islam itself is an important religion globally. However memorising a text is not notable regardless of what was memorised, and so this list is not appropriate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General Protection Fault (webcomic)

[edit]
General Protection Fault (webcomic) (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)

Completely unsourced and tagged for notability since 2011. I was unable to find any in a WP:BEFORE. Prod contested as "not uncontroversial". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Wands

[edit]
Queen of Wands (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)

Absolutely zero sources found in a WP:BEFORE. Doesn't seem to meet any web notability guidelines. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King Moe

[edit]
King Moe (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uasila'a Heleta

[edit]
Uasila'a Heleta (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ackman

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

Article was started as an obvious self-aggrandizing autobiography and has languished in a poor state for nearly fifteen years. I think it is arguable that the lawsuit involving cabbies in NYC is itself notable, as most of the coverage is about the suit, not Mr. Ackman himself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qari Najmul Hasan

[edit]
Qari Najmul Hasan (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)

Classic WP:NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lokesh Cinematic Universe

[edit]
Lokesh Cinematic Universe (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 page describes a "cinematic universe" where only two films have been made. It does not pass NPOV and WP:N. The citations do not establish enough notability for what is currently just two films that take place in the same universe. The films themselves are not marketed this way, and do not contain branding that would justify this page's existence. Pochonbro (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x7fEah3PgA
  • Weak keep has reliable sources that establishes this as a concept, though more would always be better. Optimistic that this will gain more coverage. Jontesta (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable as being one of the highest grossing Tamil film franchises while both are connected and more films have been announced. Have media coverage of the topic. Give Up (talk)
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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Zuko

[edit]
Eddie Zuko (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 enough coverage to warrant this article. There are a handful of local articles but most are either interviews or local coverage. We'd need more to demonstrate notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Yedidia

[edit]
Mario Yedidia (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)

Former nonnotable actor and a nobody now. Zero significant coverage Loew Galitz (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon's penis

[edit]
Napoleon's penis (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 appears to only regurgitate (a) rumor(s), without going in on why it is relevant (WP:RELEVANCE) or why it might be true or false.

It also appears to have an uncritical or biased view: The sources are exclusively newspapers who do the same thing: regurgitate one another. It has no scolarly sources giving this article the slightest flair of encyclopedic content. The true/falsehood of this rumor (which would be discussed in serious scolarly sources) is not mentioned, which is important if you want to talk about rumors.

It is astonishing, that on one hand, indigenous history is dismissed because it has not been written down and on the other hand, we accept the cheapest stories in otherwise sensible newspapers to make a relevant article.

--Feuerswut (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way:

The only scolarly article mentioned also questions the truth of this claim: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499209551669 page 579 of something shows clearly: the article questions if that ever happened.

"Ninety-two years later... " the summary amounts to "well it could have happened" not good enough.

This also leads me to believe that not all sources have been read and the quality of the article is questionable.

--Feuerswut (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can easily be both. Wes sideman (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umid Zokirov

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Umid Zokirov (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 as last afd, i fail to see what's changed and there only appear to be the same non-rs available here and elsewhere. the only difference is an SPA has successfully created this on multiple projects. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikyjah Williams

[edit]
Ikyjah Williams (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Who? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Skies (Seth MacFarlane album)

[edit]
Blue Skies (Seth MacFarlane album) (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 WP:NALBUM. Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centurion Reactor

[edit]
Centurion Reactor (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)

Seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM. Other sources apart from Greene do not use this term. Was prodded in 2009. Femke (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Yves Adam

[edit]
Jean-Yves Adam (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 racing driver lacks the coverage to prove his notability. His participation in the French GT Championship and Porsche Supercup don't help him meet the presumed notability guidelines for motorsports. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiled (film)

[edit]
Spoiled (film) (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)

My PROD Unable to find any coverage or indication it met NFILM was contested (? I think, not entirely clear what @Reichman115:'s final assessment was. I remain unable to find sourcing about this documentary. There is also no clear AtD as none of the parties appear notable either. Star Mississippi 15:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Inu

[edit]
Marshall Inu (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)

Simply put, this article does not meet the WP:GNG or any other notability standard. There is just not enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to justify an article. Most sources are unreliable crypto sites or not independent. I nominated it for WP:PROD, but this was contested by the page creator. Despite slight improvements to the article, the topic is still not notable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets 

WP:GNG per the significant coverage (Wikipedia:One hundred words) in multiple independent reliable sources. Also meets significant impact as per WP:ORGSIG: Subject is demonstrably notable as a pioneer in its space and has had a significant impact on culture of MMA, sports/athletics, economies. The subject is addressing an important issue (MMA fighters pay), and has received significant reliable independent coverage from many MMA sources. As an MMA fan, the article describes the first cryptocurrency to use blockchain contracts to pay MMA fighters and I beleive deleting it would do a disservice to others interested in this topic. We can continue to expand sourcing, here is what I have found so far, significant sports coverage from The Portugal News [12]], Marca Newspaper [13], Sportskeeda [14], MMA Fighting [15], MMA Mania [16], Front Office Sports [17][18], Overtime Heroics [19], Essentially Sports [20], Calfkicker [21], Combat Press [22], and Yahoo! Finance [23]. For organizations as per WP:ORGSIG, when evaluating the notability of organizations or products, “we need consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.” And we are able to demonstrate that the subject has had a significant impact on the MMA/sports culture, athletics and economies with the substantial amounts given to fighters (millions of USD), and the way these sums are being generated (by sports fans buying into the idea and buying with real-life money the currency and contributing at to addressing the UFC pay issue of their favourite UFC fighter.) In my experience as a longtime fan of Martial arts, I have never witnessed such a disruption of a space so quickly like they did.

 One of MMA’s top analyst Ariel Helwani stated he’s never seen anything or anyone unionize fighters like this.[24]

. We can also observed MMA fighters slowly learning about crypto in order to have a chance at getting paid by Marshall Inu, as per Combat Press [25], the subject has a team of people that actually goes on the phone with the fighters and teaches them how to create a crypto wallet. This is unprecedented in the Mixed Martial Arts. Subject has been helping mitigate the well documented issue of UFC#Lawsuits over contractual treatment of fighters [26] by awarding fighters millions of dollars in monetary sponsorships. So much that Top ranked fighters such as Bryce Mitchell said the subject is his biggest sponsor (very shocking for top ranked fighter from a multi billion dollar company [27]). Strong keep, certainly not because I created it, but because the article is actually well sourced and pertinent for the ecosystem of MMA/crypto for its real life implications. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Marshall Inu to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Lethweimaster (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This four-month-old memecoin fails WP:GNG. The sourcing is unreliable, being predominantly crypto blogs, self-published sources, sources with no editorial oversight, and paid posts from sponsors. I removed some of the copyright violations, but the article has little salvageable content, with statements like "On 27 May, 2022, Marshall Inu jumped nearly 70% in value in 24 hours, after announcing it was removing its buy-tax in perpetuity." sourced to a tweet from their own Twitter account, which doesn't even verify the statement. gobonobo + c 13:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your latest contribution, you seem to imply that "this four months old meme coin" is not notable because of its lifespan. Thankfully we don't measure notability with time, there is very old subject that are not notable as well as things that become notable overnight. That's why we have guidelines. Self published article/or paid post have been removed. The sourcing is no longer predominantly from crypto blogs, but is now mostly from MMA/sports websites. I strongly disagree with being little salvageable content and I do think the sourcing now meets WP:GNG. I agree we should be prudent with crypto news website/blogs, but there is numerous reliable independent sources from MMA websites (listed higher) demonstrating that the subject has had significant impact in his space and MMA culture, for both the fighters and fans, regardless of how long since its creation. For the statement you are referring too: "On 27 May, 2022, Marshall Inu jumped nearly 70% in value in 24 hours, after announcing it was removing its buy-tax in perpetuity" (The Twitter reference was solely for the "buy-tax removal" only. The "70% surge" could have been referenced with a Dextools link), regardless this section has now been removed. It was initially added figured because I've seen similar sentences on the Dogecoin article Dogecoin#History: "In January 2021, Dogecoin went up over 800% in 24 hours, attaining a price of $0.07 [...]" and also on Shiba Inu (cryptocurrency): "The exchange price of the cryptocurrency notably surged in early October 2021. Its value increased 240% over the week". In my recent edit, I reformulated the first sentence in Marshall Inu#History about the price surge which is now very similar with what has been accepted on Shiba Inu, please refer to Marshall Inu#History: In February 2022, the exchange price of the cryptocurrency increased by 262% in one week. I sourced it with [28] from Kalkine Media LLC an independent stock market media house from USA. I also added MMA coverage on the subject from Sportskeeda. Amid the recent massive cleanup, I would request everyone to give a second read on the article. I have learned a lot in my first article for deletion process, the tone I initially used was not encyclopedic. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A coin named after Joe Rogan's dog. Good grief. Lethweimaster, forum shopping is generally discouraged but as you asked for my input here it is: this article is marginalia/trivia and poorly sourced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked your input which is very non-bias seeking of myself since you seemed highly disapproving of Pawthereum. Thank you, I simply wanted the discussion to keep moving as it was stagnating, but I will abstain in the future. I don't see how the sourcing would be causing any issues, as per Wikipedia:One hundred words there is sufficient coverage to warrant notability. As fo the subject being after Rogan's companion, the origin of its name is irrelevant. We are talking about a project that briefly reached a valuation of almost a quarter billion USD. If we would follow you rationale, we wouldn't have articles for Shiba Inu (cryptocurrency) names after a Shiba Inu or Dogecoin named after the Doge meme. You consider this article trivia, for whom? Respectufully, I think many articles that you've created for UAE are trivia to me " Trivia: pieces of information of little importance or value". The value depends on who is interested in the subject and the MMA world has been shook by the way these guys are aiding fighters. As per WP:ORGSIG, in Mixed Martial arts, the subject is pioneering the way sponsorship is being done (using crypto) and impacting UFC fighters dispute in a noticeable way. As an MMA fan, the article describes the first cryptocurrency to use blockchain contracts to pay MMA fighters and I believe deleting it would do a disservice to others interested in this topic. Lethweimaster (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Since the initial del prod, contributors have made a massive clean up: cleaned up section, fixed tone, clarified claim to notability, remove undisclosed paid articles/press releases and added significant coverage. Subject meets notability guidelines per the significant coverage (Wikipedia:One hundred words) in multiple independent reliable sources. Also meets guidelines as per WP:ORGSIG, when evaluating the notability of organizations or products, “we need consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.” Subject is demonstrably notable as a pioneer in its space (bridging the gap between MMA & crypto) and has had a significant measurable impact on culture of MMA, sports/athletics, economics. The subject has received significant independent coverage from many MMA news media and is addressing an important issue of MMA fighter's pay, kindly consult newly added section Marshall Inu#Fighters pay relief. The subject has been helping mitigate the well documented issue of UFC#Lawsuits over contractual treatment of fighters [29] by awarding fighters millions of dollars in monetary sponsorships. UFC Top ranked fighter such as Bryce Mitchell even declared the subject is his biggest sponsor [30]. One of MMA’s top analyst Ariel Helwani stated he’s never seen anything or anyone unionize fighters like this.[31] It has also received considerable criticism [32] ->Marshall Inu#Criticism. As an MMA fan, the article describes the first cryptocurrency to use blockchain contracts to pay MMA fighters and I believe deleting it would be a mistake and a disservice to others interested in this topic. Lethweimaster (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: The cryptocurrency Pawthereum with barely no coverage has been accepted as Keep: See here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawthereum. They claimed that the impact on animal welfare and the donation of $70,000 is considerable. Marshall Inu has given millions USD to Mixed Martial artist, and its impact on the sport of MMA is substantial. Lethweimaster (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lethweimaster, be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. It's easy to fall into that trap - I've done it before myself! —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank will read about it right now! Lethweimaster (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Well looks like I was exactly doing this! Thank you for teaching me another lesson. Consider my behaviour rectify, no one is perfect, we are all learning all the time! Cheers Lethweimaster (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There may well be enough sources to keep this article, but if it's kept it needs a thorough rewrite -- this reads like a press release. Stuff like "Marshall Inu attracted a great deal of attention by being thanked by fighters in almost every post-fight victory speeches inside the Ultimate Fighting Championship octagon" is not encyclopedic. The subject of the article borders on a publicity exercise or tie-in product in the first place, so care must be used in describing it. jp×g 23:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking the same about that sentence, it felt weird, I tried many different ways to word the event, but that's the best I came up with. I don't know if you understood the section, but the entire focus of Marshall Inu#UFC 272 is about the subject being thanked by UFC fighters in masse in their post fight speeches, while being interviewed by Joe Rogan himself (the owner of the dog), therefore the thing we should improve is Marshall Inu attracted a great deal of attention. I had a hard time verbalizing that the crypto currency was the center of attention or stole the show or surprised and shocked the MMA world, how would you verbalize it? I changed it too Marshall Inu become the focus of interest by being thanked [...]. If you have a better idea, please feel free and contribute to the article. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lethweimaster: It should not say stuff like that at all, unless it's quoting a reliable source saying that, in which case it should do so with attribution, i.e. "The Dogwater Times said that Marshall Inu was 'the cat's pajamas'[1]"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Familypedia

[edit]
Familypedia (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 not a notable genealogy resource - it has even less oversight than fold3 or ancestry and is a wiki absolutely anyone can edit - which may not inherently make it unreliable but the lack of coverage of Familypedia itself absolutely does - there are only passing mentions and fan blogs, nothing in RS. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Time to close this AFD. The nominator put out an offer to reorient this article, move it to a different title and expand it but this was over two weeks ago and no editor has presented these sources to take them up on this proposal so this is a straight deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope 08

[edit]
Hope 08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this mission had any lasting importance. Refs are all primary except the CD review, which is not really about the event but about a related album - and notability is not inherited. No after-the-fact independent coverage located on a search.

De-PROD'd with the addition of this reference, which is not great in my opinion as it's mostly reporting what some guy involved with Hope 08 said to a bunch of church leaders about church attendance increasing. It actually in no way serves as coverage of the Hope 08 campaign. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Seems to be mentioned by the BBC at least once: https://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2008/05/14/hope08_aston_feature.shtml would this count as coverage? The "Hope Together" mission that Hope 08 was a part of seems to be going strong https://www.hopetogether.org.uk/. Maybe rename to Hope Together and expand?Spiralwidget (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. It's published by the BBC, but there's no byline, and at the bottom, it says "send us your photos, stories and experiences and we will add them as features to the BBC Birmingham website." This suggests that the content in the above article is submitted by members of the church/movement as promotion for it. Other features from around that time on Wayback Machine indicate the same - this one was "Compiled by Young Adults from Science of Spirituality in Birmingham", whereas others like this one have bylines, indicating that they are by journalists. But even if we accepted it as significant coverage, it's only one piece, so there's still not enough for GNG. (I am not counting the source added by Kvng for the reasons outlined above.)
    If Hope Together has GNG-compliant independent coverage (own website obviously doesn't count), I have no opposition to moving this article to that title and rescoping/expanding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aashir Wajahat

[edit]
Aashir Wajahat (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, WP:SINGER, WP:WP:NACTOR. All citations are just passing single mention only. No SIGCOV anywhere. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 12:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passing notability criteria by appearing in 3 notable films & other television serials. Has a singing career also & all the reliable sources are cited in article. IWMbizz (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: passing mentions doesn't qualify him for Wiki's notability. Read the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV about notability. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 13:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Ali Gilmore

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

Article on the disappearance of a lady 15 years ago. Fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT; no evidence of lasting societal impact in this article filled with repeats of media speculation around that event. The event is clearly regrettable but it is not our role to memorialise it. Also WP:VICTIM clearly shows notability here is not achieved. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:LASTING, which includes, Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. [...] Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. In the Wikipedia article, there is a reference to what appears to be a lifestyle magazine, Tallahassee Magazine, which states in 2015 that Gilmore's disappearance "is one of the more well-known cold cases in Tallahassee, but there are many others plaguing law enforcement." In 2007, NBC News reports on her disappearance, more than a year later, with quotes from family, a friend, and police. There is also a post from The Charley Project blog in the article, with a website noting it "is NOT a registered non-profit organization". There is also a reference to the Cold Case Project, with no published editorial standards, specifically a post identified as a student journalism project that focuses on Gilmore and appears to summarize a previously published news source. There is also a reference to the Our Black Girls blog. There is also 2015 local news coverage of ongoing requests by family and law enforcement for information about the case. The final source in the article is from College Candy, "the leading lifestyle site for college-aged women", "the ultimate resource for the college woman looking to be entertained", "With over 100 talented student writers". I have not found better sources to demonstrate significance per the WP:LASTING guideline, and the collection of local news, blog and infotainment websites do not indicate significance per the guideline.
2) WP:GEOSCOPE includes, Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article and refers to the need to demonstrate long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group, which does not appear supported by the available sources.
3) WP:INDEPTH coverage also appears to be insufficient per this guideline; with regard to Tallahassee Magazine, the guideline notes, Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally.
4) While there is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE because reporting has continued in the form of requests for additional information and the use of her locally high-profile case to draw attention to other local cases, as well as the most recent report naming a suspect that this article primarily relies upon, her case does not appear to have been covered in a way that demonstrates the lasting significance referred to in this guideline, e.g. as an in-depth, detailed case study.
5) WP:DIVERSE sources appear to be limited, including because the majority of the news is local, the blog/infotainment references are non-RS churnalism, and the scope of the national coverage is limited.
So I disagree that the sources are sufficient to support this article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Egypt

[edit]
List of people on the postage stamps of Egypt (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 list has been unsourced since it was created 14 years ago. There is nothing to indicate that this topic meets list guidelines, especially since about half the cotents seem to lack articles in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscrminate listing of everything, and an alphabetical list of people who appeared on the postages stamps of a particular country is basically indiscrminate. We have deleted most similar lists that have been brought to AfD John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 13:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Asih

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sri Asih (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)

G4 declined, his is not substantially identical to the deleted version. Uses different sources, different text, and importantly, the film is in a different stage of pre-release than it was a few months ago. This will need a new AFD - or perhaps to be shunted to draft until the film is released. However the lack of meeting NFILM remains, and being in pre-release, albeit a different stage, still doesn't confer inherent notability. If deleted, suggest some seasoning as there has been some moving around. Star Mississippi 13:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Joe Coodryette

[edit]
The Adventures of Joe Coodryette (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 webtoon falls way short of the notability criteria. All references are either primary, like the series listings on YouTube and Newgrounds, or unreliable like IMDB. I can't find any reviews or other third-party coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There are an even number of comments on the side of delete and keep, though keep has one extra comment, albeit qualified by weak. The keep argument rests mostly on User:CT55555's early comment which mentions "substantial impact" based on "very many reports". Most keeps rely on CT55555's observations. The discussion changes significantly after User:JoelleJay's examination of and challenge to CT55555's observations, which indicates that rather than "substantial impact" the citations are routine mentions, and the number of them is lower than would be expected of an average scholar.

That the subject wrote Geek Girls is seen as a keep reason by an IP editor. This is refuted by User:David Eppstein as writing a book is not in itself regarded as evidence of notability.

User:NeverTry4Me felt that, per WP:ANYBIO, being given an award conveyed notability. This was questioned, though not appropriately challenged. It is unclear if International Childfree Day is significant enough in itself to convey notability, though we do have an article on it.

User:Beccaynr puts forward a convincing analyses of the subject's notability. The analyses stands up to examination, therefore, along with User:JoelleJay's examination of and challenge to CT55555's observations, the conclusion is that the subject is not notable according to our inclusion criteria.

There is a possibility that the concept of Emotional Tax, or the book about it, may become notable, as that is what the cites largely refer it. Though there are not enough reliable sources which talk in depth about the subject, Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon, for us to keep this article. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon

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

No significant independent coverage or reviews, as per WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. Ploni (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think she passes WP:NACADEMIC as she is an expert in equity issues, has had a substantial impact (criterion 1 or 7) based on the very many reports and papers that cite and quote her work. Some examples:

  1. HANCOCK, B. et al. The Black experience at work in charts. McKinsey Quarterly, [s. l.], n. 2, p. 1–10, 2021. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=151015193&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 jun. 2022.
  2. CORLEY, T. Creating Accountability for Inclusive, Responsive Leadership: To make inclusion a cultural reality, organizations must examine how diversity and leadership can and should work together. People & Strategy, [s. l.], v. 43, n. 1, p. 28–32, 2020. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=142080950&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 jun. 2022.
  3. https://hbr.org/2019/11/toward-a-racially-just-workplace
  4. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_emotional_tax_of_deficit_thinking CT55555 (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, thanks for the analysis. I wanted to offer a "thanks" using the edit history/clicking on the heart icon thing, but I can't see how to do that. Oaktree b (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the heart icon is how to dispense wikilove and you do that via people's talk pages. You can do the thank thing in the history of the page, but I'll take this as thanks. You are all welcome. I'm trying to model good behaviour at AfD to make sure I improve articles as well as vote, hopefully this will reduce the current polarisation that I'm seeing at recent WP:ANI conversations and now at ArbCom. I appreciate the feedback. Peace. CT55555 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a C7 pass if her research has made an exceptional impact on policy. However, this is also demonstrably lacking in the sources above: 1. Where is Thorpe-Moscon specifically discussed in the McKinsey report? 2. This is just a routine citation. 3. "Research by the University of Virginia’s Courtney McCluney and Catalyst’s Dnika Travis and Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon shows that because black employees feel a heightened sense of difference among their mostly white peers, their ability to contribute is diminished." This is better than just appearing in a reference section, but is still a very standard academic citation (and is split across three authors). An average professor in many disciplines would have dozens of these across dozens of papers. 4. "According to authors Dnika J. Travis and Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon, an emotional tax is “a psychological burden where one has to use one’s mental resources to stay vigilant against bias, discrimination, and exclusion.” Over time, this emotional tax causes personal and professional harm on both a person’s well-being and their career success." Again, a standard reference to a research article. These are most certainly not what NPROF demands with C1 or C7, otherwise almost every postdoc publishing in fields where papers only have 1–3 authors would be eligible for an article. Additionally, I see that many of these citations are to reports directly from Catalyst, where she is VP, rather than research published in peer-reviewed journals. I am not sure what is standard in social science, but the fact that this research is not academically published may disqualify citations of it wholesale from C1 and C7. In which case they would need to be evaluated through GNG instead. JoelleJay (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I recognise in hindsight that I may have made a less convincing argument than I thought above. I could have made it more robust, if I have foreseen better the critique. I would ask people to drop her name into Google Books and you'll see pages and pages of books that mention her work. I think my initial assessment of her having a substantial impact in the equity space, a substantial influence on writers and scholar is reasonable. CT55555 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment CT55555 I'd already done that as part of following up from Google Scholar, but the ones I looked at just looked like standard references, not significant reviews of her work. Are there any specific ones which go into detail, rather than just refer to her work? -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry for delayed reply, been doing other stuff and choosing to limit my time at AfD. What I saw was lots of high quality sources (Harvard, Stanford etc) quoting her work. I did not go further than that, as that seemed like she was having a significant impact, which is what I was looking for. My thinking is that anyone who's influencing academic publications of these universities is what I would perceive as having a significant impact. Re: WP:NACADEMIC. CT55555 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally I'd be expecting to see either independant in-depth reviews of her quote and/or significantly more citations to count as significant impact in academia. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have been wondering if my view is an outlier from consensus, or if my way of looking at this is a logical and defensible position. Especially, I'm thinking about that as the ArbCom are focusses on behaviour in AfD and I'm curious if I exhibit any of the behaviours that seem to be the topic of hot debate. I hope my way of looking at this is reasonable, I'm currently second guessing every comment I make at AfD. CT55555 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Your logic is reasonable. I'm primarily basing my view on having looked at 100s of other biographical articles of academics and having spent time as an academic myself. Just getting quoted/cited is practically WP:RUNOFTHEMILL to many people, but could argue being cited in published books is higher profile than typical academic journals. If it's just passing mentions that's not significant though. In this case, numbers of cites are low. I'm staying out of the ArbCom issue, though am aware it exists. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citation counts definitely not adequate for WP:PROF. It appears that her books are self-published; this is not per se an obstacle to WP:AUTHOR notability, but we would need multiple published in-depth reviews for multiple books, and I didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Geek Girls is in WorldCat and she is cited tons of times in GoogleBooks. Let's stop deleting bios of under-represented groups plz. 128.252.172.28 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a work published (and then listed in a comprehensive catalog of all publications), and belonging to an under-represented group, are not valid criteria for notability. The work has to have some significant impact, as measured for instance by reviews or citations. Lowering the bar is neither necessary for improving our representation (there are plenty of under-represented people to write about who do meet our notability standards) nor helpful in improving our representivity (because it would lead to including even more articles from publicity-hungry but non-under-represented people). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • She is cited in numerous commercially-published books, a fact easily verified. Your second statement is a non-sequitur because WP is loaded with numerous bios of non-notable people, almost all of whom are there because of various special interests. Delete those first. Keep this one because the citations are there. 128.252.172.28 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, and just being cited in books/papers is often WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am aware that that is a standard argumentative fallacy that is usually trotted out when one wants to divert attention away from inconvenient, relevant facts. Namely, the notability standard, in practice, has been lowered by numerous (tens of thousands, at least) bios of people who would not have been considered notable several years ago, ie before special interests became so powerful on WP. It is also a fallacy to equivocate book and paper citations. The former goes much more toward notability and our subject here has been cited many times in commercially-published books. My !vote stays as is. 128.252.172.28 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Namely, the notability standard, in practice, has been lowered by numerous (tens of thousands, at least) bios of people who would not have been considered notable several years ago, Notability standards were much, much laxer and less enforced in the past, and have only gotten stronger with time. There are ongoing efforts to delete the bios of all the non-notable people created back then.
            It is also a fallacy to equivocate book and paper citations. The former goes much more toward notability Where do our notability guidelines say this? JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. I would have thought that the following points would have been well-known by seasoned WP editors, which folks here seem to be: (1) WP is >6M articles and it is still growing linearly. These properties necessarily correlate with newer articles being, on average, on more obscure, less notable topics. This applies to bios, which are a large fraction of WP. (2) Developments like editathons, wiki-eds, and wiki projects have grown enormously, and encourage their members toward special-interest rather than organic editing. Wiki-eds, in particular, are often secondary school students, whose page creations are not guided at all by notability considerations. (3) These pages are being created far faster than they can be vetted and culled (if necessary) by AfDs, judging by the sizes of the various AfD pages. (4) Such dynamics result in ongoing multiplication of the number of low-notability bios on WP across the board, e.g. in entertainment, sports, art, lit, and academia. Since I am reading this one on academics' AfD, let me give just a few higher-ed examples; WP has numerous articles on postdocs, asst profs, academics in dev. countries having essentially no res. citations, etc. that would have never survived AfD several years ago as a matter of policy. These observations are squarely incompatible with any belief that WP notability standards increase over time. As for the WHATABOUTISM reminder above, the lower notability standard creates a contradiction for this article, because it's being judged by claimed standards that do not really exist in-practice. That seems arbitrary and capricious, not to mention unfair. Finally, as another ed reminded us all below, please don't minimize the gender bias here. WP is still a very unwelcoming place for lots of folks and these sorts of AfDs are not helpful. (I am 128.252.172.28 above) 128.252.172.9 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your four points, but none of them demonstrate our notability standards have lowered, on paper or in practice. Notability isn't generally gauged at the time of article creation, but rather when challenged at AfD, so we can't attribute an increase in non-notable unchallenged subjects to weakened standards. In fact, we have empirical evidence that criteria have tightened: look at how many formerly-presumed-notable sportspeople are now being deleted due to NSPORT changing.
    From your examples: the postdoc I personally would consider non-notable per BLP1E, but would be evaluated under GNG, not NPROF. The assistant prof would also likely fall under GNG (or editors would argue that one of her awards somehow met ANYBIO or NPROF), although I would also !vote delete on her as well. The last example was kept in 2016 on the basis of meeting GNG, not NPROF; again, I would have !voted delete since her coverage doesn't appear sufficient.
    Your argument seems to be that these other non-notable white and black women academics have articles because of an overzealous drive to correct bias, and therefore we should keep this particular non-notable white woman academic...to correct bias. Why not instead employ a consistent standard at every AfD instead of contributing to the problem you complain about? And insinuating that delete !voters are just being unconsciously misogynistic is trivializing and insulting to efforts that try to address gender bias without introducing double standards. Some of us just don't think low-citation non-academic research and self-published books are enough to meet NPROF, regardless of gender. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You agree with my 4 points and also agree you would !vote delete on all the examples I gave of non-notable bios that happily exist on WP to this day, but you still insist notability threshold for academics is rising...got it. My basic point is this; in light of the existence of numerous indisputably non-notable bios on WP, the delete !votes here are unfairly holding this particular bio to a higher standard, which exists on paper, but not really in practice. Further, this sort of inconsistency hurts WP credibility. 128.252.172.7 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything about NPROF standards specifically, although it's very likely they have also risen given the number of deletions of subjects who were kept at previous AfDs and the many deletions of old articles.
    the delete !votes here are unfairly holding this particular bio to a higher standard So your solution is to just keep all non-notable academic bios? Because I don't see how it's possible for us to delete those other articles without also "unfairly holding [them] to a higher standard". JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having a hard time making myself clear, but it's really very simple: (1) Even though some non-notable bios are deleted, they are created at a far faster rate and the aggregate number of them now existing on WP is large and increasing. (2) This state of affairs constitutes a de facto standard of what the acceptable level of notability is on WP, irrespective of what policies and guidelines say. (3) It is unfair to judge the notability of Jennifer against a higher standard than what actually exists in practice. I suppose the rise of this kind of inconsistency was bound to happen because of the confluence of two factors: WP has no real mechanism to enforce uniformity and there has been an influx of large numbers of special interest editing groups/events. As to your question about my solution...You either change WP policies/guidelines to match what actually already exists, or you cull the massive corpus of non-notables and create stronger barriers to creating such articles. Either method would return matters to a consistent state, but I doubt either will happen. It's a shame, because this is one of the main impediments to WP ever being considered as an authoritative source by the general public. We've digressed far and I suggest we end our little discussion here. Thanks. 128.252.174.220 (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because editors haven't gotten around to nominating these non-notable bios for deletion doesn't mean they meet notability guidelines or would be kept at AfD. And just because WP is slow to codify remedies for counteracting new issues, like mass article creation from special interest groups, doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up and accept whatever standards these bad articles reflect. It would be great if we required GNG or NPROF be demonstrated from the outset for all new creations, but for whatever reason the community right now believes WP should be largely reactive, not preemptive, when it comes to inappropriate articles. There's also no way to WP policies/guidelines to match what actually already exists; where would we draw the new line for academics -- at the least-qualified subject currently in mainspace? At the lowest quartile (what would that be?)? Based on the historic results of AfDs? JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how is she under-represented? Just because she's a woman? JoelleJay (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't minimise Gender bias on Wikipedia. CT55555 (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's not trivializing to appeal uncritically to gender bias when contesting deletion of a non-notable biography? JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to answer such a question with a simple yes or no, because it would imply agreement she is non notable. I didn't, and I chose not to, mention equity in my keep arguments. I also chose not to critique others who do. Like most things, it's complicated. Is gender a major factor here? Who knows. Are all editors free from unconscious bias? Probably not. We're probably reaching the point, or past the point where someone is going say we're off topic, so I'll just acknowledge that here, in an attempt to wrap this tangent up. Peace. CT55555 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF, and only one book with 2 reviews (and also two coauthors) for possible WP:NAUTHOR. Although I think most of us here are interested in helping develop articles on notable women, I'm not seeing a pass of any of our notability criteria here. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect to a stub on the Emotional Tax book; as the book itself appears to be only marginally notable, I'm not so sure that this is worthwhile. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:NPROF#1. Her work appears to be influential based on frequency of citation in books. pburka (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pburka, how many of those books citing her are peer-reviewed academic publications, as required for NPROF C1? And what evidence do you have that the number of citations is outstanding for her field? JoelleJay (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found books published by houses such as Routledge, Harvard Press, Springer Nature, Edward Elgar Publishing and other respected academic presses. She's also widely cited in business publications. pburka (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misphrased the question -- I meant how many of Thorpe-Moscon's peer-reviewed academic publications are cited in those books. And do you know what is actually considered "widely cited" in business psych and management, especially as it relates to minorities? As far as I can tell, Thorpe-Moscon has around 115 citations on GS. A typical assistant professor in the same subfield -- who would not be considered notable by NPROF -- has around 500–1200 GS citations (other examples: [34], [35]). Full professors in the area -- who are still not notable through NPROF unless they are well above the "average professor" -- generally have between 2500 and 12,000 citations (the standard seems to be at least 5000), including many hundreds in books. Meanwhile, researchers who pass other NPROF criteria (and so are very likely to also pass C1) may have upwards of 30,000 citations. Merely being cited in books is not enough for notability; impact must be judged in comparison to other researchers in the field for citations to mean anything. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My original close The result was no consensus. Valid input looking at Thorpe-Moscon from both sides of the coin. With opinions (all backed up with solid reasoning) split, I do not see a relist solving to the lack of consensus. was queried by two established editors, so relisting for more input, which never hurts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roktopolash

[edit]
Roktopolash (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)

May not fulfill WP:NFILMS. Sources, when translated into English, seem to be mostly news of its release. WP:BEFORE searches (with the English title, and the native title, 'রক্তপলাশ') show that sources are mostly news about its release or interviews with the director or reactions to the cast's social media. The article has been draftified twice, and this is the third creation. – robertsky (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia (board game)

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

No indication of notability with no refs in this article, I could not find any more reliable ones either except this one, which perhaps is an RS but I am unsure. The article claims that it won a minor Games Magazine award, which was backed by BGG, but isn't significant coverage to be considered notable, and is not as influential as the Spiel des Jahres awards. VickKiang (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unsourced. Could arguably be WP:PRODed, but I guess the Games Magazine award is worth discussing. For which I concur it doesn't seem very major. My rule of thumb is that if an award isn't notable on its own (as evidenced by having its own article), it probably does not confer notability.Btw, is the award from the Games Magazine? The redirect goes there but the article doesn't say it was ever called that (just Games, not Games Magazine). PS. I did a bit more digging, and yes, it is related. But it's unclear how significant these awards were. I never heard of them, but maybe they were important "before my time"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was actually a popular game in Europe back in the mid-00s, and there are plenty of Eurogame sites with reviews. It also received a major industry award and was nominated for two others. I've fleshed out the article, added some sources and reviews (some of them in Dutch, German and Finnish, sorry) as well as an image of the box cover. Should be good to go. Guinness323 (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guinness323: @Piotrus: Thanks for this quick reply and cleanup, but I am unsure if the refs count GNG. Ref 2 is reliable but is a passing, not significant, mention. Unfortunately, I don’t speak German, but Google translated the third ref, it seems to be an unreliable, dated, self published ref (though if there are any reliable refs covering this site could you ping me). Similarly, ref 5 is to me clearly a self published ref- is there any editorial policies? On its about section, it says that it’s the second oldest gaming site, but is there evidence that it is an RS? Ref 6 is a BGG like user generated database (with a rating of 4/10 and 6/10 but no review)? It definitely doesn’t count GNG. For ref 7, I will probably need to have a further look, it has an editorial team, so could others comment on this ref's reliability? The other three refs, 8, 9, and 10, are nominations for minor awards that are probably not notable, unlike the SdJ or even the Golden Geek, I don't think that the Games Magazine award is a major one enough to count towards GNG. Ref 4 is the ref that I think is probably reliable enough to pass GNG.
So right now, I am leaning towards weak delete or neutral (ref 4 and 7 are probably RS, and might be counting towards GNG, though the latter has a higher standard), but if editors can show the two refs are definitely RS counting towards GNG, that would be great, and I might change my vote to weak keep; thanks again for participating in this AfD and helping to cleanup! VickKiang (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Testing and Evaluation Agency

[edit]
Educational Testing and Evaluation Agency (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; specialist provincial Pakistani government agency. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the 40 papers found by clicking on "scholar" above appear to consist of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Many of them are studies of whether this agency's entrance tests are reliable predictors of student performance. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Group for the Combat for Emancipation of the Working Class

[edit]
Group for the Combat for Emancipation of the Working Class (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)

Small unknown group already covered in Septuple Coalition. The group never registered, fielded a candidate, or participated in any election. Notability is mostly inherited from interaction with Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. An online search doesn’t give any additional hits aside from the two sources already in the article (which lack any form of substantial coverage). It has no notable accomplishments and any other info about this group is already given in the Septuple Coalition article. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Campaign for Fulfillment of the Working Class Aspirations

[edit]
United Campaign for Fulfillment of the Working Class Aspirations (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)

Small unknown group already covered in Septuple Coalition. The group never registered, fielded a candidate, or participated in any election. Notability is mostly inherited from interaction with Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. An online search doesn’t give any additional hits aside from the two sources already in the article (which lack any form of substantial coverage). It has no notable accomplishments and any other info about this group is already mentioned in the Septuple Coalition article. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tetine

[edit]
Tetine (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:nband. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 11:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's precise definition of reliable sources. Self-created sites (like the record company's) or the band's own sites and social media do not count, regardless of how informative they are. The only reliable source listed above is Pop Matters, but that article does not mention Tetine and only mentions Mejorado and Verner very briefly as curators of a compilation album featuring other musicians. We also need reliable sources about Tetine as an entity in its own right, and not the non-Tetine activities of the two members. Also, a message from the band itself, claiming that their work will be "destroyed" if a Wikipedia article is cleaned up or deleted, shows poor understanding of this site's rules about promotion too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tetine, significantly clean up Eliete Mejorado and Bruno Verner. These three articles mix up three different histories and are reliant on a lot of repeated text, with a severe shortage of reliable sources all around. Mejorado and Verner both have long careers with various musical projects and their two articles can probably be differentiated and improved with better sources. Meanwhile they have performed as the duo Tetine but that project is practically invisible beyond its own social media promotions and brief listings as being present on some underground compilation albums. I do not doubt their many years of work in, and on behalf of, some very interesting underground Brazilian music. But for Wikipedia's purposes, the underground must rise above esoteric clubs and fanzines, and get noticed by the mainstream music media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no significant third-party coverage to indicate notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Grammer

[edit]
Harry Grammer (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)

Cannot find evidence that this person meets WP:GNG, or that the honors and awards (CNN Heroes, Obama Foundation Fellow) are significant. The closest I found was [36], which is written like a press release. Only sources are their organization, New Earth, and the award providers. I have not attempted to determine notability of New Earth. Created by a paid SPA Leesada (talk · contribs) with unsourced and promotional content, which has since been removed, and a different SPA Izziyait (talk · contribs) later attempted to add more unsourced content that closely matches that which was removed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Ecklund

[edit]
Elise Ecklund (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:NMUSIC. Paul W (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The one 'keep' !vote does not present a policy/guideline-based argument. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unaloto Feao

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Unaloto Feao (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 1 since the previous deletion discussion was found deficient. I personally have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr Pamp-e Naser 1

[edit]
Mowtowr Pamp-e Naser 1 (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)

Mass-created article in violation of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 for all the gory details. The Iranian census gathered data by whatever the closest named landmark was, including pumps, factories, farms, bridges, individual houses and so-forth, so this is not actually a legally-recognised community and thus fails WP:GEOLAND#1. The name simply means "Motor Pump Naser 1", so this is not a village but simply a motor pump. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. North America1000 09:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12 Books That Changed the World

[edit]
12 Books That Changed the World (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)

Unsourced article since 2007. Also fails a before search as i found little coverage of this book, and pretty much all of the sources i found were not particularly authoritative. Nothing that makes this book more notable than, say, 100 Books that Changed the World or Books That Changed History: From the Art of War to Anne Frank's Diary. The helper5667 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The helper5667 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm finding some coverage - it looks like this book was the focus of some controversy when it released, as it was criticized for focusing predominantly on works published by white men, a couple of white women, and solely on those put out by the British. I'll continue to add what I find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm starting to hit more paywalls that I can't get past, so I'm going to go ahead and post based on what I've found so far. It looks like this book gained a lot of criticism when it was released, enough to where it looks like it passes NBOOK. It could be better and I'd absolutely suggest making this an article for both the book and the accompanying four part TV series, but it passes on NBOOK alone. From what I can see, it looks like the book was the one that gained the most attention of the two, in any case. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. looks like someone added bunch of sources after nomination. Nominator should so a better check before nominating. It passes notability. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I'd give them a pass on this one. A lot of these weren't easily visible via a Google search. I found most via Newspapers.com, but it took some finetuning and if you don't have access to their offerings you won't be able to see what they have. I can see where someone may not find these in a WP:BEFORE. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. There are 10 refs, of which 8 are newspapers that are definitely RS per RSP. Unfortunately, most are behind a paywall, but I am confident that this easily meets GNG. Thanks for cleaning this up! VickKiang (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next Punjab Legislative Assembly election

[edit]
Next Punjab Legislative Assembly election (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)

Way too early to have significant in-depth coverage other than speculation. Invites original research. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WP:SPAs aside, consensus is clear. ✗plicit 06:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amhara genocide

[edit]
Amhara genocide (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 is advocacy and massive POV pushing. Article writers have been cherry-picking sources (mostly unreliable) to create the narrative theirs a genocide. Even reliable ones (ex Amnesty) don’t state that. I’m surprised this article has stayed up for this long Ue3lman (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep don't agree with above statements. 2+ million vanished without a trace, well documented systemic massacres, state policies to erode a ethnic group. Dehumanizing hate speech by government officials against the Amhara in regions where they are a minority. Sources like Lemkin Institute seems reliable. Though Petra/or editors could add more academic sources such as [[37]] & [[38]], this claim of advocacy and POV pushing is unjustified, and appears as a lazy statement of someone who doesn't want to read through all the sources. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article already cited [2] and will add [1] as well. Thank you. Petra0922 (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Deletion nominator lacks experience on Human Rights cases. No solid justification
Ue3lman (talk). I came to learn about your interest in articles related to the Horn of Africa in which, to some of them already "discretionary sanctions" have been imposed. This applied to the Amhara genocide article as well. The crimes of Genocide cannot be declared or denied by individuals. Please state your justifications for this bold statement you have made. Amnesty International or Human rights watch or other non-profit global organizations provide reports on various rights violations in most cases with some questions of bias for what experts call “marginalized” cases. But this differs from case to case. It is important to note these guidelines when discussing Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes, and Crimes of aggression are based on international human rights laws: 1) The United Nations Genocide Convention of Article 4 and others that clearly state the elements of Genocide, and 2) Articles 6, 7, 8 of the ICC (the ROME Statute or International Criminal Court). These are the regulated bodies that determine Genocide and pass decisions for accountability measures whenever applied. The Amhara genocide article provides thorough references after almost major statements. Please note that the crimes listed in this article (element of Genocide) are backed by various sources (local reports, international reports including the UN and others, Embassy reports, interviews, field data from grass-root organizations, and the like..). When it comes to human rights cases or articles, it is natural for various parties or generally people of various interpretations of crimes to get involved, i.e. victims, perpetrators, or parties of opposing sides. I suggest independent editors investigate the impartiality of the editor who nominated this article for deletion. From my assessment, the editor doesn’t seem to demonstrate a solid track record of editing or producing content on the subject (human rights articles). My review of the editor's contributions certainly shows general interest in the HORN with specific engagement with certain ethnic groups. I would like to remind editors that the case in Ethiopia is based on internal ethnic conflicts. Therefore, it is important for others to take impartiality into consideration. Petra0922 (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't looked too much into this case to formulate a !vote, but I felt as though I needed to clear a few things. First, Petra0922, an editor does not need experience in a field to nominate an article for deletion. Additionally, while Ue3lman's argument is not very good (as a longer explanation would have been much preferred for such a complex case), it is still a valid deletion rationale. The primary issue with the article that I can see is that there are too many sources. While this might seem like an oxymoron, see WP:CITEOVERKILL . Two-thirds of the page-length is dedicated to just the reflist (that isn't an exaggeration). Curbon7 (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7 (talk), thank you for the comment. You are right about the large set of references. I was conscious about it— I guess I was thinking since the article is about crime characteristics: type, place, and perpetrators, I was trying to provide as many supporting sources as possible. Another situation that my research on the Amhara cause thought me is that due to various reasons there are only limited stand-alone or one-stop references. Instead, the crimes under the elements of Genocide are mentioned in various sources. The effort for this article has been to try to research, organize, and structure it so it can be used as an input for other articles or external publications if others wish to cite it. With this intention, the reference list ended up taking large space. I can reduce the sources if the citations are too many. I would appreciate feedback on this or I can wait until you make the decision about the vote. Just let me know. Thank you. Petra0922 (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is amply referenced to both explain the topic and explain the use of the term "genocide". After being draftified, it was accepted at AfC, reasessed as B class, and just today someone posted on the creator's talk page that its B-class assessment had been reaffirmed. The topic is sensitive and internationally contentious, but multiple experienced Wikipedians have judged the article more than acceptable in standard. The nominator's concerns with sourcing for the term "genocide" would have been better discussed on the talk page, where I have already opened a section to discuss possibly renaming the article in response to a re-draftification that gave no other reason than the name. The large number of sources largely invalidates the nominator's argument of cherrypicking and of course is far from disqualifying for an article in itself; on the contrary, it may be necessary in view of inevitable disagreements as to which sources are more trustworthy on the topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not see POV as being a reasons for deletion, nor do I see the article as being a form of advocacy. Even if these are faults with the article, they are not fatal, and any issues can be addressed by writing about the subject in a neutral point of view, which means reflecting any bias in the sources, too, Not dismissing the article out of hand. With 295 sources, even considering this article for deletion, now, is being far too zealous as it meets notability guidelines to exist as an article. Far better sourced, compared to the Moriori genocide article, for example. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no policy reason for this to be nominated for deletion. I see nothing here that can't be fixed in the course of honest, neutral editing. The over-referencing is a bit much though, but again, easily fixed through editing. Perhaps nominator can add some ""un-cherry-picked" references and views to improve said article if he feels the need (—Just a thought). I would call for an early close on this, as there is no valid policy violation stated for the nomination, only an opinion. GenQuest "scribble" 17:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amhara Genocide is happening in real time in Oromia region of Ethiopia as we speak. It is an active and ongoing genocide that is state sanctioned. Awareness is vital in stopping genocide. This page serves that purpose. Archiving a past genocide on Wikipedia after human catastrophic occurs on our watch serves no purpose. Please refer to all humanitarian organizations and international mainstream media outlets that reported about the numerous massacres against Amharas committed especially in the past four years. The international law (UN) May be going in slow motion to declare this as a genocide, but the evidence is already out there. The latest significant massacre being close to 3000 ethnic Amharas massacred in Tole, Wellega, Oromia region in complicity with the local and regional government. The federal government is also in cahoots with the regional authorities and even denies the massacres happen. Also very recently, the town of Ataye, North Shewa was attacked, many homes burned, several dozens killed and the population of that town migrated out. All in all, all the 9 stages of genocide have been checked on this active and ongoing Amhara Genocide in Ethiopia. Please DO NOT DELETE this Wikipedia page. Menotmebaloni (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)— Menotmebaloni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Bbb23. Thank you for adding a protection to this discussion. I was concerned about the craziness earlier. Would it be possible to ask Menotmebaloni to specify his/her !vote. From the comment added, it looks like they wanted to !vote Keep (?). Petra0922 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922: I don't think that's necessary; it's pretty obvious that it's a !Keep vote. Now how much weight the closing admin will give the vote is another story.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense, thank you. There is no rush for closing but I think I've seen that at least one week of discussion is recommended before consensus. In what circumstance the discussion takes longer than that? Petra0922 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This should not be deleted. As others have mentioned, the page can be fixed to address any issues or mistakes, but the page provides sources to back up the claims made in the article, which support the evidence of an ongoing genocide against ethnic Amharas in Ethiopia. These claims aren't fictious or biased, but recorded and backed by evidence via sources. Over time, I am sure this page will continue to be updated with even more sources and will be a reference to the general public who will want to learn more about the ongoing genocide that Amhara people have faced by multiple perpetrators. Ab-croissant (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)— Ab-croissant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100% Records

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
100% Records (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 sure that this record label passes WP:GNG. Google search doesn't reveal any helpful sources. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Ironside

[edit]
Aaron Ironside (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)

Autobiography created by single-purpose self-promotion account. No indication of notability by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I declined a speedy on this by a third editor, as it doesn't quite meet A7 or G11. He's a former radio presenter, and was on the morning show of a national station, but the only coverage I can find of him is passing mentions as the spokesman for a group campaigning in a referendum in 2020, with no significant coverage of Ironside himself. Being a spokesman in a one-off campaign doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, and is at best a WP:BLP1E. You can read more of his defense of his own notability at Talk:Aaron Ironside and User talk:Redwood1969. Storchy (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's charitable of you to WP:Assume good faith here. But my own AGF assumption quickly evaporated when I saw he tried posting in the third person at the talk page that "Mr. Ironside", "his", and "him" is referenced in other articles, when contesting speedy deletion: [39]. As for those references to him in the other articles, well, he added all but one of them himself. Those were his first contributions, minutes after account creation: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Storchy (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of RiffTrax#Public-domain shorts. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Setting Up a Room

[edit]
Setting Up a Room (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:NFILM. Sources consist of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the film or are database entries, which do not establish notability. Yeeno (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was keep. Counting the nominator's statement in the discussion that they now believe the GNG to be met (and per WP:HEY), the outcome is a consensus to keep. BD2412 T 01:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Catch a Yeti

[edit]
To Catch a Yeti (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:NFILM, most cites are to movie databases, which are not significant coverage. Yeeno (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because it's possible to verify that they exist — they have to have some substantive notability claim, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film or television critics in real media to establish passage of WP:GNG. But this is not referenced well enough: nearly all of the footnotes are to either primary sources, such as directory entries and YouTube videos, or Q&A interviews in which the filmmaker is talking about his own work in the first person. There's only one acceptable source that starts to establish notability, but one acceptable source doesn't finish establishing notability all by itself, and I can't find anything else on a ProQuest search either: of the just seven hits I get, four of them were accidental text matches in which the phrase "to catch a yeti" was used in an entirely unrelated context, and the three where it meant this film are all just TV or event calendar listings rather than substantive critical analysis. Bearcat (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bob Keen. This is admittedly best known for the Rifftrax riff, but there seems to be a good redirect target at Keen's article. Other than that, the coverage is just a bit too light for comfort. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just put a bit of work into this one. The film has a notable star (Meat Loaf) and was reviewed by Radio Times and TV Guide. I have expanded the article to include more details on its production, release, and reception, supported by sources. Ackatsis (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for putting the work into finding the sources and cleaning up the article; I didn't come across those sources before. Passes GNG now, in my opinion. Yeeno (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage exists, as found by Ackatsis. Wes sideman (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Station Brand Names

[edit]
Radio Station Brand Names (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:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:Listcruft, given that the scope of this list is so broad, it is unmaintainable. Yeeno (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Family Histories Podcast

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, article is sourced to primary sources, unreliable sources like IMDb, as well as a couple of trade publications, one of which I can't access and the other of which is clearly just a promotional blurb. A search brought up no better references. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Duquesne Dukes football team

[edit]
2022 Duquesne Dukes football team (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:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Nobody outside the school itself is writing about this team's individual seasons. Much of this content should be developed at the article about the team per WP:SPINOUT. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're similar articles about this team's non-notable seasons, many of which have one source or none at all:

2021 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2020 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Duquesne Dukes football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • There's nothing questionable about the bulk nomination: each article has the same failure of NSEASONS and GNG. The sources you point to are LOCAL or ROUTINE. If you would re-read my statement, no one is talking about a single football season as a unit, which is the subject of the article. Were this content cited at the article about the team, you could develop narratives about the season based upon coverage of each game but that's not what was done here. You can disagree with my assertions about which sources count and what they would need to say. You need not intone something nefarious. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avinesh Swamy

[edit]
Avinesh Swamy (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sitiveni Cavuilagi

[edit]
Sitiveni Cavuilagi (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Roams

[edit]
Sid Roams (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 found no significant coverage. Between the references and external links, there are three primary sources and the user edited Discogs. SL93 (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Iaruel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Joseph Iaruel (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Asiata

[edit]
Patrick Asiata (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masei Amosa

[edit]
Masei Amosa (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aukusitino Aitupe

[edit]
Aukusitino Aitupe (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_July_11&oldid=1099090141"