Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 6: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:38, 6 July 2022

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 05	July 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. Nominator is a sockpuppeteer and no other editor has participated in this discussion.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radiance Media Group

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

Only produced 2 films so far. No significant coverage. Fails GNG Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Right Services

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads rather WP:PROMO and I can't find any secondary source information about it from a cursory google search. BrigadierG (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article that cannot be fixed owing to a lack of notability. Routine coverage, passing mentions, and primary sources do not meet standards at WP:CORPDEPTH. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:53, 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 speedy keep. Nominator was a sock and all votes are for keeping. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 20:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomcar

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:ROUTINE is a part of the Wikipedia:Notability (events) notability guideline page. It is not applicable toward companies, because events are not companies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND per coverage in scholarly sources and per news report coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Below are some source examples; more exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Zoom Car (www.zoomcar.in) Case Study – At a Critical Set of Cross Roads In India". SAGE Business Cases. March 6, 2016. Retrieved July 6, 2022. 3,692 words.
Malvigha, V; Saravanakumar, R (June 17, 2021). "Attitude aspects associated with self-driven rental cars". Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. Retrieved July 6, 2022.
"ZoomCar: Betting Big on IoT to Drive Growth". Amity Research Centers. November 15, 2021. Retrieved July 6, 2022. 13 pages.
Chakraborty, Sayan (September 21, 2016). "The genesis of Zoomcar". Mint. Retrieved July 6, 2022.
Sarkhel, Aritra (January 12, 2017). "Now Zoomcar's analytics platform to help reduce road accidents". The Economic Times. Retrieved July 6, 2022.
S.H., Salman (March 12, 2020). "Car rental startups juggle between revenue models to boost profit". Mint. Retrieved July 6, 2022.
Ram, Vidya (November 30, 2015). "eStartups: How Zoomcar is scripting a nice little success story on Indian roads". Financial Express. Retrieved July 6, 2022.
Punit, Itika Sharma (July 29, 2015). "How two Americans zoomed into India's car rental market". Quartz. Retrieved July 6, 2022.
Bhalla, Kritti (July 7, 2020). "Customer Money Stuck In Refunds, But Zoomcar CEO 'Unaware'". Inc42. Retrieved July 6, 2022.
Shilpa, Phadnis; Dhamija, Anshul (August 10, 2013). "Larry Summers fuels Bangalore car hire startup". The Times of India. Retrieved July 6, 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Keep ROUTINE is inapplicable here and there are sufficient sources as provided by Northamerica1000 NemesisAT (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom blocked as a sock. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 9 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Boyz Entertainment

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

No significant coverage. Fails GNG Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is one the most successful Punjabi film production companies, producing many of the highest-grossing Punjabi films. And, it has significant coverage though.SangrurUser (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Your argument that It is one the most successful Punjabi film production companies, producing many of the highest-grossing Punjabi films has nothing to do with notability. Since you are the creator of this article, please point to a source which gives significant coverage. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: @Alphaonekannan: Here are the Box Office Mojo and Deadline sources. The film Chal Mera Putt 3 produced and distributed by the company the company entered top 10 in United States and Canada. If you want to go through other secondary and independent sources you can go through the references section of the article.SangrurUser (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply:@SangrurUser:, the Box office Mojo is simply listing box office collection of a movie. The next one is just a review of a movie. None of this gives significant coverage to the coverage. There is not even a single source in the article which talks about the company in depth and accounts to notability. Please point out one such source so that I can withdraw my nomination. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has made multiple hits over the years. Mathmo ^Talk 15:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Searched in Google News: This was the 2nd one down. Looking at the way the mention even though brief is mentioned in The Tribune, April 8, 2008 article by Gurnaaz Kaur, "It’s all about money, honey!" about the upcoming film, Golak Bugni Bank Te Batua and how it reads with "Directed by Ksshitij Chaudhary, it is a Rhythm Boyz Entertainment film that stars Harish Verma and Simi Chahal in the lead roles". There's huge familiarity with how that's written. Please forgive me for using this term but some may say .... "if it was the Anglosphere equivalent, it would be the same as mentioning the mainstream production companies we all know!" I know that foreign films are soimetimes hard to gauge sometimes but for me this is easily notable. A quick glance in other searches confirms this. Karl Twist (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore the appropriate guideline is NCORP. We require sources which contains significant and in-depth "Independent Content" that directly discusses the topic company. We don't have that. Instead we have brief mentions-in-passing (mostly in relation to articles on movies where the topic company was involved in some capacity) and PR/Announcements. There's nothing that even comes close to what is required. The Keep !voters reasoning - that because some of the movies were successful, the production company is therefore successful - is not supported by any of our guidelines (also see WP:NOTINHERITED). Similarly, the GHITS argument with a side-helping of Anglosphere bias is also unsupported by any hard data and links/references. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just looking at the impressive resume of this company and what is already available in Google News etc., it's obvious that they are very prominent in India. Karl Twist (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - We require references/sources that discuss the *company* in-depth and containing "Independent Content" as per WP:NCORP. Also see WP:GHITS. This topic has been at AfD for nearly a month and to date, not a single reference has been located which can be used to establish notability as per NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This source clearly says "Rhythm Boyz Entertainment is also one of the industry’s leading film houses and the audience always look forward to their movies", also check this.SangrurUser (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That source from kiddaan.com is little more than a blog with the "Contact" as a gmail address. The article has no attributed author. I could go on - for example the tone, the lack of in-depth information, etc. But easiest to just tell you that it isn't a reliable source and fails WP:RS. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Check this source, it is from reliable source The Tribune. It says "Rhythm Boyz is among the top production companies". Also, it is clear it is a notable company, so I suppose we can keep the article with a tag of "in-depth source required".SangrurUser (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked at the first 15 references. Very poor junk. Company founders information, interviews with the partners. Typical startup news. It may be an entertainment company but it fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. The rest of a mix of press-releases, film reviews which are not specific to the company, PR, non-rs links, film awards box office numbers, music awards, numbers, again not linked to the org. Its a complete mess designed to disguise its true nature as private startup. scope_creep^Talk 09:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leaving aside the obvious non-reliable sources, trivial mentions like [1], [2], [3] qualify REFBOMB#Citations to work that the article's subject produced. I have doubts on the individual notability of this company's founders Amrinder Gill and Karaj Gill, due to the subpar sourcing in those too. — hako9 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replete with trivial mentions. Nom is correct. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only trivial mentions that do not provide evidence of notability. Pinguinn 🐧 10:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, a lot of this is viewing India from the outside. How about from the Inside? If I was in India I would know where to look. I still believe it is notable. Karl Twist (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For a regional Indian language, which has very limited audience, opens in top 10 in North America. So, obviously it is notable. Also, I have above mentioned The Tribune source which directly says as "one of the top production companies", and some other local sources which highlight its notability. Earlier, a user said "some of the movies were successful", well most of the movies produced by this company are success. Almost every film produced by them opens in top 10 in Australia and New Zealand.SangrurUser (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Check this source by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It says "Rhythm Boyz Entertainment, a Canadian entertainment company which also operates in India and the United States. It is one of the major players in the burgeoning Punjabi film industry, which caters to Punjabi speakers in India, Pakistan and diaspora communities around the world." I think this is enough for proving notability.SangrurUser (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Maybe enough for notability of Chhalla Mud Ke Nahi Aaya, not this article. This fails NCORP. — hako9 (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Both, an International and an Indian source describing it as among the "top and major" companies. Also, these lines are not just quotes or trivial sources by the founder or someone else, these are from the authors themselves.SangrurUser (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And this source gives the significant coverage too.SangrurUser (talk) 03:04, 7 August 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 03:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Henry

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

Non-notable reality show contestant; competed on, but did not win, Big Brother. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Get some mentions in celebrity magazines for "where are they now" type articles mentioning her, I gave up after 2 pages of that fluff. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Oaktree b points out, the coverage is related to her appearance on the show, much of it only tangentially at best. This looks like textbook WP:BLP1E. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:13, 9 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. Policy based rationales show a rough consensus to delete Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D-Agree

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

This subject may not meet general notability guidelines; I can't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources in English, but perhaps others can help determine if there is such coverage in other languages. The article was PRODed in September 2021 and then moved to draft in October 2021 where a different version still exists at Draft:D-Agree. Somehow a duplicate article was moved here in June 2022 and then most of its history was struck as WP:COPYVIO. There is a paragraph about the subject in Issue-based information system, which looks appropriate to me, but I doubt there is sufficient notability for this separate article, which also, by the way, was created by connected contributors. Biogeographist (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with delete, I don't think this meets GNG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist You don't think that UN report is reliable source? Could you please read p. 23.

https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/knowledge-products/Regional-Partners-Forum-Outcome-Report-20220318.pdf Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable but just a paragraph, not significant coverage by WP:GNG standard, so not relevant to the deletion discussion, but may be useful as a source in another article. Biogeographist (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

a) Please see if this citation helps in any way Which also seems academically independent of present researcher contributor.

"Ito, T., Suzuki, S., Yamaguchi, N., Nishida, T., Hiraishi, K., & Yoshino, K. (2020). D-Agree: Crowd Discussion Support System Based on Automated Facilitation Agent. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(09), 13614-13615. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i09.7094"

b) A goodfaith researcher's contribution in his own area of knowledge generally need not be considered serious breach of COI. Being unable to accommodate Phd level researchers just because enough independent coverage does not exist is structural problem of Wikipedia. IMHO as long as any researcher contributor is not promoting pseudo–science we give encyclopedic space (by merging if necessary) at least in related article until draft gets developed.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is not independent of the developers as required by WP:GNG evaluation of sources for notability, so not not relevant to the deletion discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist Even without that, 2 UN agencies reports and 2 Japanese news sources exists would those be ok to maintain article as stub?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the UN stuff is just a mention, and the Japanese sources are an interview and press releases, not significant coverage. Biogeographist (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist

You mean bellow is just a mention and is not significant?

"Afghanistan: D-Agree - An AI-based solution to support participatory urban planning In 2019, the Nagoya Institute of Technology and Kyoto University, in partnership with the Kabul Municipality, developed an Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered platform, called D-Agree, to support information-centric participation in urban planning and provide support for stakeholders to reach consensus. D-Agree, is a largescale online debate support platform based on AI facilitation, where its AI-based tool extracts the discussion structure based on IBIS (issues, ideas, pros, and cons) from the human opinions posted on the D-Agree platform, as well as data collected from other social media. From September 2019 until the fall of Kabul in August 2021, D-Agree was used on behalf of Kabul Municipality to moderate 306 Kabul city-related planning discussions. In these discussions, more than 15,000 citizens participated in planning activities hosted by D-Agree and generated more than 71,000 opinions (catalogued into IBIS) regarding urban-related thematic areas. Despite the Taliban take-over, D-Agree will continue to play an important role in facilitating urban planning and infrastructure-related consultations. The next steps are to expend the platform to promote communicative planning in other cities, including Kandahar and Herat, which have officially expressed their intention to collaborate. D-Agree will also be used in collaboration with more municipal governments in Japan and Indonesia."

This is a case study presented at Second Regional Partners Forum 2022 hosted jointly by two UN agencies (ESCAP and UN-Habitat).

And reported by following links.

1. https://www.urbanagendaplatform.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/UN%20Regional%20Commissions_NUA%20survey%20responses_2021.pdf

2. https://www.un.org/ecosoc/sites/www.un.org.ecosoc/files/files/en/2022doc/UNECE-QR-report.pdf

3.https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/knowledge-products/Regional-Partners-Forum-Outcome-Report-20220318.pdf

If yes, then no argument, please proceed accordingly.

Thanks. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist And please understand this is a digital platform developed by Japanese, and if you are looking for significant coverage then go to Japanese media world.

Her I post some references which already published about D-Agree in Japanese media.

1. https://reseed.resemom.jp/article/2022/05/17/3919.html

2. https://www.kknews.co.jp/news/20220218yt06

3. https://robotstart.info/2021/06/03/ai-opinion-intensive-d-agree.html

4. https://www.excite.co.jp/news/article/Atpress_312932/

5. https://techable.jp/archives/158997

6. https://mag.osdn.jp/pr/22/06/07/093001

7. https://www.sanspo.com/pressrelease/atpress/GVJIX4WNSRNIZMYKVRRMTYGSZA/

8. https://aismiley.co.jp/ai_news/ai-supports-discussion-and-consensus-building/

9. https://ict-enews.net/2022/02/21agreebit/

10. https://nagoyastartupnews.jp/d-agree-kasugai-city/

11. https://www.newsweekjapan.jp/press-release/2022/06/aid-agreeedtech2022.php

12. https://it.impress.co.jp/articles/-/21575

13. https://airobot-news.net/2022/02/18/agreebit/

14. https://japan.zdnet.com/release/30575336/

15. https://digitalist-web.jp/trends/news-products/xaL4Z

16. https://www.sentankyo.jp/articles/2fd6846d-84b4-4a97-8839-879cf1f9ed1f

17. https://sotokoto-online.jp/sustainability/12013

18. https://www.sankeibiz.jp/business/news/220217/prl2202171002020-n1.htm

19. https://www.ai-japan.go.jp/menu/covid-19-top/online-meeting/

20. https://www.mapion.co.jp/news/release/ap310225-all/

21. https://port.creww.me/startup/93583

22. https://www.zaikei.co.jp/releases/1687357/

23. https://newspicks.com/news/7070176/

24. https://newspicks.com/news/7158226

25. https://solver-story.com/solution/2855/ Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A list of links does not necessarily indicate significant coverage; someone has to evaluate the links, which I invite someone else to do since I don't read Japanese and it would be a lot of work to translate and evaluate all of those. As I said above, the Japanese sources that I reviewed that were cited in the article were an interview and press releases, neither of which are considered independent sources. And multiple sources can publish essentially the same press release. The sources need to meet all the relevant criteria in WP:GNG. Biogeographist (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist True. If possible please invite someone who know Japanese to do so.

Also, please find link bellow, a video recently published by Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun showing D-Agree in action.

https://www.nikkan.co.jp/articles/view/641340?fbclid=IwAR1lIn75v7XDCrX-Sr2JUGEkGWdFaupUdD_8isZk1vAKYDED4EaH-lJbU9k Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist Please find another link bellow, which showing D-Agree in action in Kabul city.

The video published by Kabul Municipal Government official Youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUyAmUxMCIg&t=1s Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist @Oaktree b @PamD

Through above entire discussion, I am still not clear enough, why an entire paragraph in UN report is not substantial enough for a stub. Have you missed reading of entire paragraph or you find any other difficulty with that paragraph?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph in a sixty-something-page report does not make a subject notable. Biogeographist (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Encyclopedic review update: Co incidentally Draft:D-Agree had come under my observation on 22nd June when I was searching some thing for Dyk, just till today's review I thought article being too technical for me I requested another technical Dyk participant for review notability chances for the draft and they expressed that not their area of work that made me think the topic much more difficult (That happened because main contributing author is technical). But when I re reviewed just now it my self on main contributor's request topic for encyclopedic purposes is not much technical needs just breif rewriting.

I have segregated Municipal corporation reports and Municipal semi advertorials in external link section being primary sources. May be those can be deleted if necessary.

There is at least one research paper in a journal, reports by 2 United Nations agencies and 1–1 independent news paper reports in 2 Japanese news papers namely The Asahi Shimbun, CNET make the topic encyclopedic point of view notable and very much suitable as stub article.

I will not recommend AfC draftification since usually AfCs will not pass a stub article.

If at all users are not comfortable and wish to delete then userify it in main contributor's user space. I will help them for achieving comfortable stub status. It might take take me a week or so to complete the task looking at other tasks in my hand.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteor Merge to Draft:D-Agree if there is non-overlapping content. Not ready for mainspace in current malformed state. PamD 11:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list of sources given above is all press-releases or passing mentions. I only find one conference paper in Jstage [4], so this isn't a widely discussed item in Japanese circles either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Full results of the search here: [5] Oaktree b (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b Beside that there are many Peer review sources (journals =3+; international conferences =8+) exists which widely discussed D-Agree and Collagree platforms (the first version of D-Agree), foundations, development, and applications.

Please see bellow:

(1) In GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION Journal (Springer, Impact Factor: 2.9), which widely discussed D-Agree

(2) In IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems Journal (IF: 0.6) which discussed the first version of D-Agree, called Collagree

(3) an international conference reported D-Agree;

(4) an international conference reported D-Agree.

(5) an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree; (6)an international conference reported D-Agree development feature; (7) an international conference reported D-Agree development feature; (8)an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree; (9) an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree;

(10) In Journal of architecture and planning (Transactions of AIJ), reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree

(11) an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree;

References:

1.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10726-021-09765-8;

2.https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/transinf/E101.D/4/E101.D_2016IIP0013/_pdf/-char/ja

3. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8893866&casa_token=EnTaMrZMEOwAAAAA:hciC4upbnj4SGd0YiQQINrxX-dJuGsf-0MnnhzX0OMmupF0fyrxGChddoGMayihqMYzANNrJUisf&tag=1

4. https://aiforgood2019.github.io/papers/IJCAI19-AI4SG_paper_1.pdf

5. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsd/3/1/3_1_61/_pdf

6. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/pjsai/JSAI2019/0/JSAI2019_2F1E302/_pdf/-char/ja

7. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8950662&casa_token=vnOY94cgNs8AAAAA:vqE1zKEPvE_NRaXVh5iNJlBHTuCqmW-aXgov5IEz7UNxfi99szS7L_e1HPU-ucQNF4dbYuE8zs0G

8. https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings-article/ica/2018/08460069/13xI8A6FLUy

9. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsd/3/1/3_1_61/_pdf

10. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/aija/82/742/82_3169/_pdf/-char/ja

11. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8015299

Would those be ok to maintain article as stub and say subject is not widely discussed? I don't think so. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the sources, especially number 10, as the article is in Japanese. It would be best if you can update the article with the relevant information in each one listed above. I have no interest in doing so. Oaktree b (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The academic papers aren't independent, so they don't indicate notability. They aren't widely cited either. Jawad Haqbeen is a co-author of some of them, by the way. Biogeographist (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Biogeographist First, I (Jawad Haqbeen) am not a co-author of sources (n=11) mentioned above. Second, what is your definition from widely cited? One of collagree related paper got more than 80 citation. I invite you to see Google Scholar for full citation: [6] Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That paper has a higher citation count than the rest, but Google Scholar includes self-citations by the same authors, so you have to subtract those. Anyway, the the fact that the papers aren't independent is most relevant to the notability issue. Biogeographist (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BiogeographistThen, I don't want to get into an argument with you anymore, please follow the rules. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Biogeographist As my last Comment : More than 30 computer and social science researchers has been involved in foundations, development, and application of D-Agree and collagree for a period of 10 years and you still calling that it doesn't indicate notability.

For instance, see the author list of paper bellow which published in a good journal, how many author involved? Yes, it is ten author but still don't indicated notability.

[7] Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in WP:GNG that says that the number of co-authors of a non-independent academic paper is a measure of notability on Wikipedia. As part of their jobs, academics are expected to publish about the work they have done. In general, there are countless academic papers about work that is not suitable to be the subject of stand-alone articles on Wikipedia; the work's non-notability by Wikipedia's standards does not mean that the work is not good or did not require considerable effort. Such an academic paper may in fact be valuable as a reference in another article but is not useful for determining notability here because of the publication's non-independent nature. Biogeographist (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Biogeographist Please do not take otherwise, personally it is okay for me if suitable content gets merged in some article still, as of now, I wish to continue experimenting through some discussion processes since end of the day @Jawad Haqbeen and their institution research in " 'crowd sourcing dependent', software platform for public utility."

In brief I wish this discussion remains open for another week and half or so.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted break

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reconsider in the light of the many new sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: the article isn't ready for main space. Sentences like "D-Agree supports large-scale online human to human discourse with a focus to facilitate stakeholder's information-centric participation to reach consensus about urban planning and development decisions" suggest that a lot of re-writing is necessary. That sort of morass of buzzwords needs translation into straightforward English appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I would recommend proper draftification rather than moving to any individual's user-space because if the subject proves to be notable, I think collaborative authorship is more likely to create a good article than individual efforts. Elemimele (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reviewed available sources policies and inputs and updated the article again on 2022 July, 12 th and 13th. I wanted to refer discussion @ one more forum but I realized policies do not allow so until this discussion is closed, so I am adding my comment here itself.

- After reading policy details I had feeling, it would have been better to have placed a notability tag and article talk page discussion and followed WP:BEFORE process before this AfD. That would have given sufficient opportunity to update the article as stub properly and avoid confusion and miss–perception on part of various editors and Wikipedia:Follow the leader effect.

- WP:ATD states ".. If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. .." WP:ATD-E states ".. If an article on a notable topic severely fails in sourcing ( say the verifiability or neutral point of view policies), it may be reduced to a stub .."

- WP:SIGCOV states ".. Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

According to User:Biogeographist U.N. reports are reliable enough, but while considering WP:GNG he seems missing on statement of purpose mentioned in above given in WP:SIGCOV expects only as much content which would not necessitate original research to write a (stub) article. Is User:Biogeographist setting of higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary?

- Similarly there were few Japanese news sources which were press release dependent, but news article by Japan's 4th largest news media The Asahi Shimbun seems very much independent and not a press release.
- What remains in the article is which specific municipal corporations the software platform is implemented in. Though websites of respective Municipal corporations in Japan and Afghanistan are primary but reliable enough sources for verification that really software had been implemented there, then why we are insisting upon setting a higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary?
- Last but not least software detail needed in the article is what is software back end and what is user interface like. For that any research paper not written by institutions own professors/ researchers need to suffice. Whether we really need to setting a higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary?
- Last but not least, Expectations of User:Elemimele seems to calls in some copy edit of the stub and not necessarily a draftification. While updating the article I became more sure that article is not likely to get any more content than platform the software works and names of municipal corporations so sending it to draft is not likely to increase content in any exponential manner. The draft AfC process and users their too usually put higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary for just a stub article. I believe that it is fit as a stub article, if not then merge in some article, IMHO but not much point in sending to draft at present stage.

I hope this comment may help other users to take a re–look into the article D-Agree.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stub class is not a consolation prize for a non-notable subject. And judging from the current state of the deletion discussion, it appears that sending the article to AfD was the right decision. I don't see any "confusion and misperception" here. Biogeographist (talk) 02:13, 15 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) 01:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garry John Orriss

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

Insufficient significant coverage. See preliminary discussion at Talk:Garry John Orriss#Notability. – Ploni (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Germany. Ploni (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Gumsaint and @Kvng. –Ploni (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in Jstor or GScholar, I don't think he's notable as an artist. Oaktree b (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything to sustantiate this person's notability in a BEFORE search. WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST fail. No in-depth coverage in RS over an extented period of time, no reviews of shows or notable collections. Netherzone (talk) 07:30, 6 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 merge to Anthony Mary Claret. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography of Anthony Mary Claret

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

Article fails notability and sourcing. Only references to this autobiography are inline citations to biographical discussions of the subject's life. Simply Google search yielded quite a few copies for say, though! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Pbritti (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge for now given that this book has been printed in about a dozen different languages, it seems unlikely that it won't pass our criteria for number of reviews. However, tracking them down in different languages, under different titles, and largely predating the internet age is a big project.--Jahaza (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza: As part of the process pre-AfD, I searched for said reviews and came up empty-handed. If you can find these reviews, sure, I'll even retract the AfD early. But I don't think the promise of sources is enough to qualify it for retention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with merge.--Jahaza (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am extremely doubtful that the prophecies of a Spanish (?) mystic of over 1250 years ago are WP-notable, even if much translated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: that's an incredibly strange comment. This book is an autobiography, not "prophecies" and the author, Anthony Mary Claret, lived from 1807-1870, not "1250 years ago". Consider striking.--Jahaza (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: I agree with Jahaza here. A bit of an oddball comment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Translations are normally a good indication of notability, but not in this case, since this isn't commercial publishing - he's the founder of a Catholic religious order, the Claretians, who of course will translate the book because they are interested in the autobiography of their own founder. ie, it's a point for the notability of Claret, not this book in particular. I would argue otherwise if there were sources discussing the autobiography as a work of literature, or some other way than just mining it for biographical citations, but there don't seem to be. -- asilvering (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd just cut it and stick it at the bottom of Claret's article, for all the half page it is. Oaktree b (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Anthony Mary Claret, not enough coverage for a standalone article but enough for a paragraph or two on the main article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge can have a short paragraph / single sentence in the works section of Anthony Mary Claret. A bit of OR in the second paragraph, so I'd only keep the first paragraph. Femke (talk) 18:38, 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 no consensus. Opinion is split between keep and merge to specimens of Tyrannosaurus. What's clear is that there's no interest in deletion, so any follow-up discussion should be a merger proposal on the article talk page. Sandstein 08:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titus (dinosaur)

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

16th most complete T rex fossil found. Not notable. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't matter if it's the 16th or 16 thousandth, if it meets WP:GNG, it's notable and based on the citations in the article, it's notable. E.g:

Merge into the species article. Some information about this specimen is notable, but it's not appropriate for a whole article. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it reads a bit more like an advertisement. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it could be improved. But please note WP:DINC. CT55555 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree with editors below that merge to Specimens of Tyrannosaurus is better than my first suggestion. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Specimens of Tyrannosaurus I don't think merging to the main article is a good idea as it would bloat the article. The correct destination would be the specimens article. I agree with YE that the tone is too promotional needs to be trimmed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Specimens of Tyrannosaurus per above. This is a well-established practice. (ETA: my opinion is unchanged, but given the state of that article and community consensus I will not get in the way of a keep decision.) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Short articles are merged together at times, not articles that have too much valid referenced information to fit together. Dream Focus 22:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well referenced with plenty of valid information in it. The general notability guidelines have been covered. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2021/05/titus-the-t-rex-is-coming-to-the-uk-this-summer-heres-why-its-a-big-deal National Geographic explains why its a big deal. ;) Significant coverage elsewhere, including at https://natural-history-conservation.com/TyrannosaurusRex.htm Dream Focus 20:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jul/03/real-t-rex-goes-on-show-in-england-for-first-time-in-over-a-century https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tyrannosaurus-rex-exhibition-england-b1877553.html https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-56889834 Dream Focus 05:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: The article is very poorly written, and when I went over it had far too many irrelevant asides. The sourcing is largely local news items, with a few cringe-worthy sources such as blogs and a Google search. It also reads as promotional in nature. IMHO, if/when merged (or even if kept), it will require significant rewriting to be neutral and encyclopedic in tone. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Specimens of Tyrannosaurus As per Hemiauchenia. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. An editor who !voted "keep" has posted it to ARS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)~~ CT55555, I withdraw this comment and am sorry if any hurt was caused. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see this. I have been transparent about posting it to ARS, and I hope you saw that above. If you have any concern, I welcome discussion. CT55555 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you for feeling bad about this unfair accusation of canvassing. You have done nothing wrong. There is no policy, rule, guideline concerning participation in an AfD and posting at ARS. Your post at ARS is not canvassing for a Keep vote, in fact it says what the article's weak points are. MrsSnoozy does not understand what canvassing is. -- GreenC 02:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Those who say merge, do you mean delete the article and replace it with a redirect? Is there any information at all that would actually be merged over there? Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus#"Titus". I notice that page list other dinosaurs that have links to their own full size articles like this one. Dream Focus 17:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a reasonable summation of the contributions to this point. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many above have argued to merge with Specimens of Tyrannosaurus. It's a very good article and could house this content well. I was almost persuaded actually. Until I saw how long it was. I would draw you attention to WP:SIZERULE which tells us when an article has reach a size that is too big and should be split. I quote the table in the guideline

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub.

I note that Specimens of Tyrannosaurus is already 118k, 18% longer than upper limit. Twice the size at which is should probably be divided.

So the content should be split between articles. And the question that should follow is: which topics sufficiently meet WP:GNG to warrant an individual article. Which leads me back to my original vote. Also, I think merging at the expense of redirecting is unnecessary. Redirecting should always be preferred over deleting, notwithstanding my keep preference is based on policy. WP:ATD-R Best, CT55555 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The size rule is rarely enforced, and the article isn't excessively over the limit to the point where it needs to be split. There are far more deserving specimens to get separate articles to cover more detail than this specimen. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't me opening a discussion about splitting that article. This is me saying: don't exacerbate the problem. This is me pointing out that cramming more into that article goes against the guidelines. Guidelines, are what should inform outcomes at AfD. The lack of enforcement of the guidelines to date, seems correct, but still our role in this forum is to suggests answers in line with guidelines. If people are tending to make a suggestion that is counter to a guideline, such paths forward should be avoided if guideline and policy compliant paths forward are possible. You get me? tl;dr We're here to propose solutions aligned with guidelines. CT55555 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR YorkshireExpat (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules reads: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. How are you improving Wikipedia by getting rid of an article that clearly passes the general notability guidelines, and is valid encyclopedic content? Dream Focus 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it warrants an article on its own. My WP:IAR comment was more aimed at WP:SIZERULE in this instance (though it is quite fun to throw around WP:IAR :)). YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules is about applying common sense, about not following a rule if it causes harm. It's is not about doing what ever you feel like with no justification. If it was, it could be used to argue any stance in this argument. CT55555 (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think common sense is merging this article into Specimens of Tyrannosaurus and don't really see how that article can be usefully split. I'm not militantly for deleting this article. I think that is the best proposed solution. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sue (dinosaur) was featured on the main page of Wikipedia multiple times (see talk page at the top). Trix (dinosaur) is another t-rex with its own article just like this one. Other dinosaur fossils have articles such as Big John (dinosaur) who survived AFD last November. Dippy has a nice size article and a side article at Dippy (London) for its plaster cast replica. There is nothing wrong with articles like this. Nothing gained by deleting them and just having a small token amount of information in an over ready large list article. Dream Focus 05:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue all those fossils are very well known, far better known than Titus, and that it's rightful place is in the list. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Yorkshire's comment. It goes without saying that Sue has received a massive amount of scholarship. Trix has been referenced in a few papers [8][9] and is the subject of multiple abstracts [10] [11]. As much as I opposed Big John's status as a standalone article, it is now also the subject of a peer-reviewed study [12]. Finally, Dippy is the holotype of Diplodocus and there is also ample scholarship on the cultural impact of the London cast. What does Titus have? Titus has never been described in the scientific literature; the only result on Google Scholar is a report-style pamphlet that is clearly promotional in nature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A reminder that AfD concerns topic not content. The question is should we have an article about Titus. Can we have a three sentence stub with the 3 best sources? If so then WP:TNT, "blow up and start over" ("start over"). Many of the Merge voters are concerned about the content (promotional tone, poorly written, need to be rewritten). Fair enough but these are arguments for cleanup, not delete. The only solid argument I have seen for delete is poor sourcing ie. this topic does not have reliable sources. However DreamFocus has countered with multiple good quality sources: National Geographic, Guardian, BBC, Independent. They are among highest quality reliable sources used anywhere on Wikipedia. The question is why can't we have an article on this topic using these sources. -- GreenC 06:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ with Specimens of Tyrannosaurus After having explored this topic a bit, my feeling is that it's wise to go with the subject matter experts on this one. There simply isn't as much to this story as there is with Big John (dinosaur), even from a layperson's point of view. The "first 'real' T.rex fossil exhibited in England for 100 years" is also sort of misleading in that, as the National Geographic points out, the Natural History Museum in London actually purchased the T.rex fossil discovered in 1900 in Wyoming in the 1960s, and has been loaning parts of it out for display in various museums and galleries for years. Even more fascinating to me though was the fact that this Titus display actually incorporates a lot of Stan (dinosaur) replica parts (including his head) but no one calls this out except for the Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs blog, unfortunately. It did occur to me to ask whether we could keep this page as a standalone through 31 August 2022 (when the exhibit ends), and then merge it on 1 September, but based on the past traffic to this page, I'm not sure it's worth it. I appreciate all the out-of-the-box thinking, especially with regard to the huge page size of Specimens of Tyrannosaurus, which looks like it could use an overall tidy regardless, ~~but sadly I think Titus the dinosaur may once again be meeting a tragic end. (Joking. There is nothing wrong with merging content and joining his mates on the Specimens page.)~~ Cielquiparle (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've now included a detailed endnote explaining the context and arguments for the "first in a century in England" claim. I've also found a way to incorporate information about Stan the dinosaur, whose cast was merged with Titus's. Finally, I identified and removed one major mistake in the article, and added some additional information. So hopefully this is a bit less problematic from a "is this just superficial marketing and spin" point of view. Even if he is "just the 16th". Cielquiparle (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts @Cielquiparle! YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't take all the credit. "It takes a terror." Many here have contributed to improving the page. I added more inbound links so if the page is kept, it will see more traffic. (16th out of maybe 100!) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus and the new sources provided. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. Lots of sources cited. No compliance with WP:Before (as evidenced by sources now in the article); article can be improved which is a preferred outcome to deletion.. No valid cited policy reason for deletion. WP:I don’t like it. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. Not the article it was nominated for deletion.

As to those niffnawing about content issues, WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth controls.7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstaining as I'm now too involved with the text. It's true, I am very guilty of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but it was mainly in the sense that I don't like inaccurate or misleading content, and when relying a lot on newspapers it's always important to try to avoid getting swept away by the superficiality, sensationalism, now-ism, and inaccuracy that can creep in from time to time. Happily I think I've addressed my own concerns now! Page looks nice. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to User:Cielquiparle and others who have turned this Tyrannosaurus wreck of an article into Dino-mite. I just used the rater tool on it, and it assesses as "B class" article. I great example of WP:HEY if I ever saw one. CT55555 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the B-class assessment for WP:DINO based on my experience with articles for the project. This is a start-class article at most. Note that this is not a comment on whether to delete the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't know if the article has been updated sine the nomination but the current article clearly demonstrates notability with well-sourced verifiable references. E.g.: "According to the museum, this is the first time that a "real" fossilised Tyrannosaurus rex has been shown in England for more than 100 years". Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear consensus to keep the content as notable, but further discussion on keep vs merge may be useful to reach consensus on a solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "solution" is already clear - Keep per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The specimens article is already quite long, so there isn't really space for more information there. Meets GNG, so let's just keep it separate. Femke (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel funny about my shameless WP:PILEON but I had to stop by to say what a wonderful job all of you editors have done. The article is a winner now and this is an easy keep based on SIGCOV. @CT55555: spoke the truth right from the start. Bruxton (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A side note for anyone who jumped to the top of this discussion like I did to read CT55555's original comment: This article now has more than enough independent, reliable sources and content to justify keeping the article as a standalone, etc., but one of the two sources CT55555 originally proposed turned out not to be independent, as it was a scientific report that was commissioned (probably by the museum itself). To find out more, please read the article Talk page. That brings me to another benefit of keeping the article as a standalone: Issues like this regarding facts and sourcing are more easily managed on a dedicated Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, if we can't cite a museum source about contents they exhibit, there is a wider problem on Wikipedia than this article. Museums tend to be carefully run organisations that tend to publish things accurately in my opinion.

Secondly, if they we can't cite a source that a museum commissions to a panel of external experts, that's even more surprising. And yet I still see no evidence of this, just assumption, right?
Thirdly, the source in question was written by three academics, their affiliations are on the front page. They are
University of Kansas Biodiversity Institute and Natural History Museum

Carnegie Museum of Natural History

Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester
The skeleton is being housed at Nottingham Natural History Museum, a different entity from any of the three authors. I have seen no evidence that NNHM commissioned this report (which doesn't mean they didn't, I see they host it) but I think a report by three prominent relevant scientists from different museums and universities seems independent. No?

Fourthly, things just being exhibited in notable museums tends to suggest notability, and I feel like we've missed that in this conversation so far. CT55555 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a source in general it's perfectly acceptable. I agree with you for AfD notability purposes it's also acceptable for reasons you outline. Still, many people take a hard line on independence during AfD so it's probably not worth lighting up this one source as the article has plenty of other independent sources that demonstrate notability. -- GreenC 02:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's fine to cite with care, like any other source, as discussed on the Talk page. (The dinosaur experts may prefer not to use certain parts, perhaps because the information within the report isn't all independently verifiable. In this case the dinosaur parts were 3D-scanned and shared with the scientific community, but I imagine the issue is that many other aspects cannot be tested by the rest of the scientific community independently, since it's a privately owned specimen, etc.) On the notability side, I think the point was just that pretty much every dinosaur specimen comes with a glossy commissioned brochure like this with an assessment by scientists, which they use for auctions and other purposes, so its mere existence doesn't necessarily prove notability. (Then again, in real life everything is paid for in the end in some form or another, and there are always bias problems, no matter how "independent" or "reliable" the veneer; conversely, I accept that it's possible that some brochures may be more reliable and more independent and others.) Anyway my point wasn't this, but the fact that I think important discussions like this need to be preserved on a well managed Talk page, which is difficult with a super huge page like the Specimens one. And as GreenC said, we don't really need this source to establish notability anyway. (Also just wanted to make sure it's clear I thought CT55555 did a great job in trying to explore every angle of keep vs. merge. The real "dinosaur in the room" is the huge page size of the Specimens page, and I now have ideas about how to fix it, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Cielquiparle stated, I think that the "report" is acceptable to cite and is fair game for discussions of notability. However, any uses of its content, including in discussions of notability, should only be restricted to non-scientific claims. I believe this is where non-project members are lacking important context. The "report" is not peer-reviewed and is not up to the standard of rigour in the field for academic articles. If you look at the disclaimer on the last page, it also contains standard language used for auctions or private collectors:

This document has been prepared solely for the purpose of providing background information to the person to whom it has been delivered. [...] Nothing contained herein shall be relied upon as a promise, representation or warranty and those relying on this report should undertake independent advice as regards the statements, assumptions and conclusions made herein.

By their own admission, this is not an independent source because it was commissioned as an informational pamphlet for a commercial transaction. There is no way to guarantee that this "report" is not just a pre-defined list of talking points arranged into a structured format. As you note, there is no evidence in the "report" that the Nottingham Natural History Museum actually commissioned it; it is more plausible that the vendor of the fossil has simply provided a copy of the "report" for the museum to reproduce on their website. Therefore, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP this cannot be considered a reliable source for scientific information. Non-scientific claims contained therein are likely to be non-controversial, however, and are acceptable for citation.

I also dispute the comments about museums imparting inherent accuracy and notability to information sourced from them. Museums do not always provide accurate information. Their web publications are frequently not written by specialists but instead by outreach personnel, who may not grasp technical minutiae unless specialists are closely involved. Likewise, physical exhibits often remain outdated unless museums have sufficient funds to update them (which is the case only infrequently). Furthermore, if being exhibited in a notable museum imparts notability, I would question why the fish specimen CM 4776a Belonostomus cf. tenuirostris tucked in the corner of an exhibit at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, and with zero peer-reviewed publications referencing its existence, does not already have its own article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to avoid getting into the weeds about the merits of this report, not because I find the comments about it convincing, but because I agree with User:GreenC that it is a distraction when there are so many other high quality sources establishing notability. What ever you think about being exhibited in a notable museum and the notability of that, WP:CREATIVE makes creative professionals (authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals) notable if their work is in a notable museum, so in the absence of a specific notability criteria for dinosaurs, this my observation is informed by guidance.

To answer why Wikipedia tends to have articles about some things and not others, would be to write a mini essay about how fast cars, sportsmen, dinosaurs, and space craft are invariably well written about and other things are not, it would probably talk about the demographics of who edits Wikipedia and note downsides of editors who focus only on one area WP:SPA. I'll avoid saying more about that, as it's outside the scope of an AfD, other than to say that there are probably millions of notable books, people, and events that meet notability criteria but are not on here because of the personal whims of editors. CT55555 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with the other sources used to establish notability here, my main concern is addressing the contentious use of the "report" in the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as standalone, in light of significant article improvement (and sources found/incorporated) over the course of the discussion. In case it wasn't clear, I changed my mind from much earlier on in this discussion, and no longer wish to abstain, so we can finally bring this discussion to a close. I just also wanted to say that I am very happy with how this discussion went overall. We had dinosaur domain experts and non-expert dinosaur fans who had differing viewpoints at various junctures, but the tone of the discussion was constructive, respectful, and thoughtful throughout, and it was easy to follow different arguments. Best of all, a lot of people put in a lot of work into not only in finding sources and expanding the page, but also in further refining the content once it was expanded, and there was also a very constructive discussion on the Talk page, where we can continue this discussion for anyone who is interested. Well done and good collaboration. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Specimens of Tyrannosaurus is already too long, at over 100,000 bytes. NemesisAT (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well they will keep finding 'em. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Specimens of Tyrannosaurus - obvious solution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have already !voted to merge, but I would like to point out that none of the sources for this article are anything other than routine museum publicity coverage or equally routine paleontological studies. These are not indicators of notability. IMO, it fails WP:GNG and is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS- it does not demonstrate notability extending beyond the publicized museum exhibit. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have been thinking along these lines in another way: Why not simplify the Specimens of Tyrannosaurus page by restricting it to mostly scientific information about each specimen? If there are individual specimens that have a lot of additional (less strictly scientific) angles to their story AND they are individually notable, give them their own standalone articles where those details (appealing to non-expert dinosaur fans and children, etc.) can be explained. A lot of the "bigger" story specimens already have their own standalone pages, so it's only a few that would potentially need to be "spun out". At the moment it's confusing to read the Specimens page and find some of the more exhibition-oriented / marketing type detail mixed up with what is truly significant or debated about each fossil from a scientific point of view. Plus the length of the page at the moment is inadvertently obscuring good information about important specimens that are further down on the page, etc. Anyway I would be happy to help with this process if there was someone on the dinosaur expert team who could also help (and of course we could discuss best way forward in more detail first). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The marketing-like text simply has no place in Wikipedia and should be removed, which will eliminate the problem you mention. FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think it's when you include a little too much information about specific exhibitions that it sounds like marketing (e.g., does the "Sue" section on the Specimens page really need that many words about Walt Disney World? Or at all since she has her own page as well?). The "largest ever" type claims and controversies also feel like "marketing" but seem important to note and clarify – that's where Wikipedia can provide an important service by helping to provide additional facts and context. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Specimens of Tyrannosaurus - An AfD should never have been pursued here. Merging is the obvious solution; guidelines about article length are purely guidelines; the content of this article is not objective nor informative. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it incredibly important to point out, "Titus" isn't really the nickname of this specimen. The Nottingham Museum mount, and the fossils, are two entirely independent things, and the name "Titus" here applies to the cast of the fossils. Much the same that a cast of "Stan" is not "Stan". Half of the information in this article is already present on the Specimens of Tyrannosaurus page, and half of what's left should be removed as NPOV (details about which companies did what etc). This article is misleading in presenting a private specimen as a public commodity by citing sources that describe the public mount of plaster and 3d models. I've refrained from making any edits because of this ongoing discussion, but see the specimens page where I have just cut out ~15000 bytes of promotional, duplicated, or non-specimen-specific information; more than enough to accommodate what's worth salvaging from this page while still shortening the overall article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IJReid well I think it's turned out pretty well. If I'd have put a merge on the page (which I might have done had I known the other article existed) it wouldn't have got anywhere near the level of interest that it has as an AfD. The main thing is that the encylopedia is improved. As I said earlier, I now agree with the merge to 'Specimens'. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Specimens of Tyrannosaurus or Wollaton Hall - You can find some basic sources, but it does not change the fact that there is absolutely nothing of note about this specimen. It's a T. rex that got displayed in a particular country that didn't used to have them. That is it. Nothing else makes it stand out from the dozens of other T. rex we have. Even the improved article hardly has much content, and it could easily be accommodated as a subsection of the Nottingham Natural History Museum section of the Wollaton Hall article, nevermind the specimens article. This deals with concerns the merge location is too large already and also handily settles IJReid's point about two different subjects - the specimen can be talked about in the Specimens of Tyrannosaurus article, the cast can be talked about at the museum article, as that is respectively wher each half of the topic is relevant. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of merging with Wollaton Hall in light of comments from IJReid, also because the cast will remain at the Nottingham Natural History Museum after the exhibit finishes in August, and as I was saying all the exhibit-specific information and claims sound out-of-place and marketing-like elsewhere. (But that said... Will it look awkward on the Wollaton Hall page? Would it seem like slightly too much information about a single exhibit? Would it then lead to another page split after all?) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'd be too big for the page - without things split across sections and with a bit of reformatting and rewording you can probably fit all the information on the museum and the mount into three digestible paragraphs. It's just really split up into small tidbits at the moment. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY The squad has turned this into a good article. WP:GNG easily met. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 10 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Singapore

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

No evidence found of any notability. This is not the older, more notable organization "Catholic Church of Singapore", nor any of the other ones (Anglican, Pentecostal, Charismatic) which are also called "Church of Singapore". Sources in article are all primary, and I couldn't find other ones (but this may be due to the confusion in names), e.g. using the Chinese name in GNews gave hits[13], but these turn out to be for the Catholic Church of Singapore[14][15]. Fram (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and Singapore. Fram (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, when searcxhing using the English results, it returned the protestant church "Church of Singapore". https://www.cos.org.sg Josephsolomon92 (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.(see below) Reflist consist entirely of primary sources; unable to locate any useful secondary sources. Re: difficulty of searching, can be disambiguated by adding their location "Marine Parade" to the search term to distinguish from others of similar name (as well as its branches), but apart from primary source(s) e.g. their own website, social media, etc. Google results consist almost entirely of maps/directions services, directories/lists and the like. By page 4, results become tangential, e.g. website of an audiovisual company showcasing as part of their portfolio the work they did setting up AV systems for the church, or the church's corporate registration info from a database. Located a news report with an incidental mention, was included in a list of places visited by people who tested COVID-positive, not relevant. Fails to meet GNG. --2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are mostly primary sources, not enough sources to pass GNG. BEFORE search does not yield any articles. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any significant coverage of the church. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets mentioned in histories of global Pentecostalism, charismatic movement in Asia, and in Singapore, etc. I found some newspaper articles that were not on google. Chinese newspapers might have more. I've found (but not accessed) a biography of the Church's main founder in the National Library of Singapore. There are some more academic papers I've added to further reading, but haven't been able to access. I've also cleaned up the article a bit.--Jahaza (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More than a page on the history of the church here[16] which needs to be incorporated.--Jahaza (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: changing my recommendation from delete to give a chance for the article to be developed and properly sourced. Thanks to @Jahaza for initial efforts in this direction. Subject may be notable from an academic/historical standpoint as an important case study and pioneering example of Pentacostalism in Asia, but additional sources from other researchers (beyond just Allan Anderson) would be helpful to better establish that. 30 Dec 1978 Straits Times citation (part of larger section two local/lifestyle feature surveying lesser-known minority Christian groups) added by Jahaza also indicates it was worthy of coverage (albeit as a supplementary follow-up to an earlier feature about larger, more prominent groups). Mathews paper (listed in Further reading) and "More than a page on the history" (mentioned above) are unfortunately inaccessible to me. Prefer if assertions of fact in the article (e.g. "first independent charismatic local church") can be supported by secondary sources rather than primary ones, such as their self-published history, or the Goh biography (likely written and published by affiliated parties). Note there is a need to guard against COI editors, especially as a sockpuppeteer has been involved with the article as well as disruption this AfD. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per IP 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 after some good work by Jahaza.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - always happy to support an alternative to deletion where one appears appropriate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:58, 24 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. Consensus that the added sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Markey

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plenty of hits about a Patrick Markey discusisng violent video games, unsure if it's the same fellow as this producer. I find one mention of him going to an awards ceremony in a Bozeman newspaper. Video game Patrick appears more notable than producer Patrick. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Added some sources. He's a 40-year vet and most of his career is going to be offline sources. Per creative he played a key role in two important films, The Horse Whisperer and A River Runs Through It. -- GreenC 16:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You're talking about the Moral Combat guy, right Oaktree b? Agree, he seems more notable! Film Patrick is not, per WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid rationale for topic deletion. WP:INHERIT says don't make this argument during AfD discussions, that's all it means ("It only applies to arguments to avoid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion"). Nobody here has made an inherit argument. If you are referring to my Keep, because WP:NACTOR requires two important films. -- GreenC 03:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to sources added by GreenC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews are not reliable sources of information. He's been nominated for several awards, but never won any. Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People often say no interviews, but I am curious as to what guideline it is? What rule are you citing? I would like to read it. I found WP:INTERVIEW but it's just a user essay that someone wrote. Because what counts as an "interview" with long block quotes answering questions verbatim; versus a biographical piece that includes quotes from the subject; versus original journalism that appears in the same piece. It's pretty complicated. You'll have to explain which one(s) and why they are interviews and why the interview essay trumps GNG and NACTOR in this case. -- GreenC 15:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even accepting the interviews, all of the references amount to "He's an interesting guy." Not a notable one. Sean Brunnock (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting" is an argument to avoid see WP:INTERESTING. According to WP:NOTE: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines". We base it on the guidelines first and foremost, then weigh things such as importance. Your rationale is entirely based on your perception of his importance. -- GreenC 16:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think you might like to re-read Sean's comment, there. He asserts lack of notability OVER the 'interesting' stuff... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you are right, he's saying the sources say interesting while Sean himself says "Not notable." Per WP:JUSTNOTABLE "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable." What guideline or policy is Sean basing the not notable assertion on? -- GreenC 18:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me to prove a negative. Sean Brunnock (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking why you think it fails NOTE. -- GreenC 19:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to me to prove that he's not notable. It's up to you to prove that he is.

There are 4 citations in the article-
Local man going to the Emmys. Lot's of folks go to the Emmys. Not notable.

Northwest Ohio native Patrick Markey...is a fervent supporter of those calling for change. Not notable.

Producer Patrick Markey is currently developing a number of projects through his Fostoria Film Co., including “Heart Mountain,” to which Robert Redford is attached as star and director. Heart Mountain never got made and Fostoria doesn't have a WP page. Not notable.

Film producer Patrick Markey, a West Virginia native, visited the West Virginia University College of Law to take part in a question and answer session and screening of "The Natural," a movie he was involved in...

None of this seems notable to me. Sean Brunnock (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have now said why. That's all. It's not about "proof", just need to give a rule-based rationale why you think the sources fail Note. Based on your reply, I think you are saying the sources are not "significant coverage" ie. WP:NOTE says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case you consider "significant" not to be word count or focus (these source are all entirely about Markey) rather the quality of the source content doesn't meet your standards of notability. That's fine, it's your opinion and a valid one. I think he meets WP:NACTOR, but we can both have valid rules-based opinions and disagree. -- GreenC 00:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Brunnock, it doesn't matter how you (or any of us) assess the subject's achievements. If reliable sources have chosen to cover the subject, he's notable. ~Kvng (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning delete on this one, but hoping to see a bit more discussion on the four sources that were added to this article during the AfD, and whether they constitute notability per GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:PRODUCER says The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and (correct me if I'm wrong) he's produced at least 10 films that are each sufficiently notable to have their own wikipedia article? That seems like a clear pass at the criteria. I understand that for creative professionals, it's OK if they are not the subject of the sources, as long as their work is, so feels like an easy "keep" from me. CT55555 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GreenC added four sources: two from local papers, one from Variety (magazine) and one from a student newspaper. Variety is definitely reliable and has significant coverage. The two local papers are also reliable and have significant coverage. Some editors are not persuaded by local coverage but there's no policy reason to exclude it for a bio and the local coverage is in two different areas: Bozeman (where the subject lives) and Toledo (where he was born). This definitely meets WP:42. ~Kvng (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Widely covered per search results on ProQuest. Additionally, he has received multiple nominations for awards such as PGA Awards, including in 2021. 2001:569:5593:5900:90E0:EBBE:1798:3609 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 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. TigerShark (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False Mirrors

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

Article is completely unsourced and Google search turned up no mentions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Russia. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Russian article about this book has been deemed to be of "good article" quality. I took a look at the sources in the Russian version, and while I don't speak Russian, running a few of them through machine translation shows there's quite enough there to build an article – since this is a Russian topic, we shouldn't assume the sources will be in English. We have a list of ambitious reviews and essays in Russian magazines (an example), as well as references to printed sources I can't access. /Julle (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This begs the question: if we can't find any sources in English, does it meet notability for English WP? We're discussing this same issue on another AfD of mine for Don't Leave.... Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage does not have to be in English for something to be notable per WP:NOENG. English sources are preferred, but not required. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, notability guidelines differ depending on the language's Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have very clear guidelines on how we treat sources in other languages than English in Wikipedia:Verifiability: all other things alike, we prefer to refer to sources in English, if they are of equal quality. But we don't require English sources, and AfD discussions don't require us to have them.

We can't build an international encyclopedia only using sources in English. Most of the world is primarily, often only, described in other languages. Part of the magic of Wikipedia is that we can use those sources and make the information available in – for example – English. /Julle (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can still come to other conclusions, of course; the fact that an article exists in one language doesn't mean that the subject meets the requirements of English Wikipedia. But having glanced at the sources of Russian Wikipedia, I'm confident this one does. /Julle (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To give another example, the main page is currently (through Today's Featured Picture) linking to Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Vilnius, which is exclusively supported by sources in Lithuanian. But it's still something we want to put on the main page and point our readers to. /Julle (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author's article? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author. What we have here is entirely plot summary, maintenance-tagged for over a decade, so redirecting is a sensible solution. If someone wants to come by and build a full article or even a better-sourced stub later, they can do that. Honestly, I'm not excited about this solution either, since as far as I can tell this book has never been translated into English, so "False Mirrors" is a false title - no book exists by this author under this name. (There is no entry for it in the British Library or the Library of Congress. LoC does have the Russian title though: [17]). So I wouldn't argue against delete either. -- asilvering (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With some help, I've now added basic reception and publication history pieces from the Russian article, addressing the comments above. /Julle (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the redirect arguments seem to be largely saying "This article is currently bad" not "this topic isn't notable." AfD is not an appropriate place to litigate article improvement needs. matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the Russian version is a GA, then this is notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so we come to this issue again: is notability universal? This book has never been translated into English. Let's say I pick an American author who's never been translated into Russian and create Russian WP articles for all of his work. How soon do you think they would get redirected? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notability is universal.

We decide where we want to draw the line for notability and that might differ slightly from other language versions, of course, but the availability in English is not a factor. English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the entire world, written in English.

I think you severely underestimate the amount of articles in other Wikipedias about literature that isn't translated into the language of the local Wikipedia. To take an example from my native language, w:sv:For the Time Being isn't just one of many articles about works of literature not translated into Swedish, but also given FA status. /Julle (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I asked this in a previous AfD and nobody said anything. Next question: how well known is this piece in Sweden? I'm curious why someone would create an article for Swedish WP. (And yes, I know most Swedes are bilingual in English...which explains a lot.) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:04, 13 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 Derivative (finance). TigerShark (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying

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

This is hardly a separate topic for an article. The underlying of an options strategy is usually stocks, futures, or bonds, and we already have articles for all of those. All incoming links to this article should be redirected to those pages as context requires.

I've traded short options for years now, and I've never considered the subject of this article as a separate topic. TraderCharlotte (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. TraderCharlotte (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is a catastrophe for the general reader. It's only got three paragraphs: The first says explicitly "the underlying of a derivative is an asset". The second says explicitly "An underlying ... is not the asset". And there is no sourcing. I'd suggest replacing the current article with a redirect to Derivative_(finance) which mentions and defines the underlying in the second sentence of its lead. But I have no prejudice against someone recreating this article if they have sourcing and something useful to say. Wikipedia is for general readers, who need help in understanding concepts that seasoned professionals may regard as trivial. Elemimele (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Elemimele as the article makes no sense. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. There are multiple meanings of "Underlying", and I doubt that the financial meaning is the first one that comes to mind for the average reader. BD2412 T 04:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Derivative (finance). The concept of an underlying is really part of the definition of a derivative, so it it is probably best explained in that article. Alternatively, this article can be kept if anyone has ideas for expanding it with more information. As Elemimele says, the fact that this concept is trivial for a specialist does not mean that it should be deleted. Part of Wikipedia's job is to explain concepts for non-specialists. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:03, 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. Consensus is all over the place as to a redirect but there does seem to be a consensus that there is insufficient significant coverage to warrant an article. I take it some sources were added late, such as a marriage to a more notable person, but that seems to not help his case, as notability isn't inherited, or married into. A for a redirect, there isn't a clear target, nor clear consensus, so that is a discussion that must be held elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Shutte

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

PRODded with reason "Fails WP:BIO", deprodded with reason "passes WP:CRIN", which is not an official policy/guideline. 0xDeadbeef 08:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and New Zealand. 0xDeadbeef 08:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some mentions of him in The NZ Herald, Hampshire chronicle and the Daily Telegraph (the UK ones are definitely him - he played for those teams in those seasons per CricketArchive). I think we'd need way more access to news archives to show one way or the other whether there's all that much other coverage of Shutte - there might be some wider coverage of him playing for Hamilton in the Hawke Cup, for example. At least he doesn't have a super-common name I suppose.

In the circumstances I think I tend towards suggesting a partial merge (adding a note) and redirect to List of Northern Districts representative cricketers, particularly as there is the prospect of more coverage so WP:ATD, with its usual points about preserving sources, history, attribution and so on, applies. Obviously if more can be found I'd consider a suggestion to keep the article, but I would need notifying if anything changes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Telegraph source - it says something about him playing in Scotland (I think), so maybe there's more about him. If not, then redirect to the List of Northern Districts representative cricketers page per WP:ATD, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Sammyrice: anything in NZ cricket circles about this guy? StickyWicket (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The extra coverage regarding his marriage puts him above WP:MILL. St Anselm (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. not sure what you meant, but here's an assessment table. 0xDeadbeef 04:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood WP:SIGCOV 0xDeadbeef 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:0xDeadbeef
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/38606.html		? I'm not sure if this counts as reliable.		? Unknown
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/sport/new-look-northern-districts-daryl-tuffey-easing-his-way-back/4ANCT476EJWOBI57644BINGOU4/			Only a mention.	✘ No
https://archive.nzc.nz/Players/45/45532/Hawke_Cup_Matches.html	?			✘ No
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5637047.shutte-stars-as-ventnor-retain-title/		No page author.		✘ No
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/qa-joelle-king-world-no-5-squash-player/TJZC4U56KWPRAECRG7WORWXKBQ/			Only a mention.	✘ No
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/5062422/Time-is-on-my-side-says-squash-star-Joelle-King			Passing mention.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. I don't fully agree with 0xDeadbeef's source assessment table (see following), but I agree that the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSCRIT #5.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:BilledMammal
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/38606.html			Statistics-only database	✘ No
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/sport/new-look-northern-districts-daryl-tuffey-easing-his-way-back/4ANCT476EJWOBI57644BINGOU4/			Only a mention.	✘ No
https://archive.nzc.nz/Players/45/45532/Hawke_Cup_Matches.html	?	?	List of matches Ryan Shuttle played in	✘ No
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5637047.shutte-stars-as-ventnor-retain-title/			Routine game coverage; WP:SPORTSCRIT #4 requires "reports beyond routine game coverage.".	✘ No
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/qa-joelle-king-world-no-5-squash-player/TJZC4U56KWPRAECRG7WORWXKBQ/	Only mention is a quote from his partner		Only a mention.	✘ No
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/5062422/Time-is-on-my-side-says-squash-star-Joelle-King			Passing mention.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BASIC, multiple independent sources can be combined in lieu of one source to show significant coverage. This moving getting towards on that level of coverage and might suggest weakly keeping rather than firm deleting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the routine match coverage, all we have on him is: Also to receive the converted Northern Districts baggy cap for his first first-class appearance for the Association is Ryan Shutte. All-rounder Shutte a medium pace, left-hand bat plays in Hamilton having moved to New Zealand from South Africa 18 months ago. and King's 28-year-old fiance, Ryan Shutte, was on the cusp of selection for the Northern Districts cricket team but has put his career on the backburner to become her official manager.

That isn't even close to WP:BASIC, and in any case WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 still applies. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got myself a bit garbled with the typing. I meant to write "this is moving towards getting onto that level...", not that it's there yet. Wrt BASIC - that's a bold move to suggest that it's lower in the hierarchy than an SNG. Part of the problem with all of this mess is that there are guidelines which contradict each other. Here's one case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Northern Districts representative cricketers Played a handful of games in NZ and had some successes in non-notable cricket elsewhere. There's clearly coverage on this guy, but at the moment probably not enough for a GNG pass. Redirect here is a suitable WP:ATD unless our NZ cricket editors can dig up more. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I agree with BilledMammal's source assessment above. Not nearly enough coverage to meet GNG or BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I oppose a redirect here, as there are multiple valid targets that the reader might be searching for - they might be searching for him in relation to his cricket performance, or they might be searching for him in relation to his more notable wife. Choosing one risks confusing the reader, and as such per WP:R#DELETE #1 we should not have a redirect - the search function is more effective. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth does a redirect make it "unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine"? We can add a note to his entry at the ND cricketers list (as we've done many, many times before) which links to his wife. Dead easy. In fact, I'll go and do it now. I'll note that WP:R#KEEP 1, 2, 3 (because there'll be a link) and 5 all clearly apply. Not even close. Redirects are cheap. Cheaper and more efficient than deleting the article. Honestly, what on earth are we doing having to waste time and energy here - it's either a very weak keep or an obvious redirect. Given that there are sources about him, albeit sketchy ones, that move towards adequate sourcing we shouldn't even be thinking about deletion in the circumstances. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant aspect is whether it will make it unreasonably difficult for the reader to find what they are searching for. See also WP:R#ASTONISH; a reader wanting to read about Ryan Shutte, husband of Joelle King, will be astonished to find themselves at a list of cricket players; it is both the wrong location, and a note is insufficient to make it clear to the reader why they have arrived at this list. BilledMammal (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people have multiple interesting things about them. To define him as the husband of someone else rather than for the thing that makes him notable would be odd. I would think someone arriving at the list at point S would probably look in the list for the chap. And then they can read the note that makes everything clear and they can go, "oh, that's interesting, he played cricket as well. I never knew that". Which is sort of the point of an encyclopaedia Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rather than for the thing that makes him notable would be odd - he's not notable. And they could read the note, but that requires them to both be aware how Wikipedia notes work, and if they think they are in the wrong location they are unlikely to search for it in the first place - it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:R#ASTONISH, as it is not clear why the reader arrived there, nor is it necessarily the right place for them to arrive. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough to receive passing mentions in the New Zealand Herald and The Daily Telegraph. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see anything representing consensus in this AFD right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just about meets WP:SIGCOV with the expansion. StickyWicket (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- AssociateAffiliate, First of all not sure what is going on with the names, but would you mind to explain why it meets SIGCOV? Do you disagree with the assessment tables? 0xDeadbeef 13:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, you realize they contradict each other, right? If I were to cherry pick, I would get two greens. St Anselm (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  They sure do. But that is because of my previous misunderstanding of WP:SIGCOV. I have had a draft declined for failing SIGCOV so you shouldn't trust me on my assessment of that. I fully agree with BilledMammal's table now. 0xDeadbeef 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The source assessment table by BilledMammal is helpful. I found no other suitable sources. Please ping me if good sources are found. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:50, 21 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 Coldplay discography#Extended plays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic (Coldplay EP)

AfDs for this article:

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because as with most Coldplay EPs, Acoustic is not a very notable release: Its details can be boiled down to a text on their discography page, it has not appeared on any country's national music chart, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country and it has not won or been nominated for a major music award. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really don't think these all should have been bundled like this. Outside of all being Coldplay releases, they're all pretty unconnected to one another, and a brief skim of them made it look like they all had varying sourcing situations that probably should have separate discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These were all promotional/limited releases to further market their respective album eras and I personally think they don't warrant a separated page. I know I should not be anecdotal, but if you ask the average Coldplay fan (me included), they will say only Prospekt's March (which charted in numerous countries) and Kaleidoscope (which is Grammy-nominated) are notable. Some might mention Safety and The Blue Room due to their historical nature as pre-Parachutes content as well. But the rest can easily be described in the discography page like I mentioned or merged into album and tour pages. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you could very well be right on the point of notability. Maybe they're not notable. It just feels like it should like it should be five different discussions to get there. If people start doing their due diligence and reviewing the sources present, and there's any back and forth, it's going to get messy fast. Alternatively, on the front end, it seems to be scaring away participants as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, I'll be removing the other EPs and nominating them separately. This will be the Acoustic nomination. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I don't like Coldplay but hey come on... it is Coldplay! Mathmo ^Talk 15:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a huge fan of Coldplay myself, I can assure you the only people who would ever care about this EP are completist collectors. It fails WP:NALBUM big time. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm no Coldplay fan myself, but the best I could find is this. I guess it doesn't help with having a title that brings back tons of false-positive results when searching! Probably best to redirect to Coldplay discography#Extended plays per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah all the false positives does make it tricky Mathmo ^Talk 18:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Coldplay discography#Extended plays. I tried and tried to find something, anything, written about this EP, but there's quite literally nothing. The only useful information is the tracklist and that's already on plenty of music websites and Coldplay fansites. Wes sideman (talk) 10:54, 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 redirect to Electric current. Consensus is that if this is to be an article, it needs to completely and competently rewritten (with appropriate sources, to start with). The redirect target can be changed through the editorial process if desired. Sandstein 08:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical polarity

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

The concept is not supported by either refs included in the article or academic publishings elsewhere and could be an original research. When talking about polarity-related concepts in Electricity, we commonly refer them to the vetor field generated by an external electric field that is applied to a dielectric material. In academic search of "Electrical polarity", I rarely see any usage of this phrase to refer the electrode things. Therefore, it looks like original research to me. I'm not quite sure if there's any other phrase for the concept described in the article since too few references are given. Tiger (Talk) 15:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tiger (Talk) 15:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of those science articles we have floating about that looks like it was assembled from flash cards that somebody used to study for a high-school exam. It mentions symbols and names some devices but doesn't actually explain the topic. It needs rewriting, or redirecting, or something. XOR'easter (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as one of the major discoveries of Benjamin Franklin.^[1]^[2] While it is the case that in academia polarity is often expresed in terms of the direction of an electric field, it is not exclusively so, and electrical polarity (or just 'polarity') is more typically used in the laypersons lexicon. Passes WP:GNG.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

References

^ Harold Bloom, ed. (2009). Benjamin Franklin. Facts On File. p. 29. ISBN 9781438117027.
^ John R. Karsnitz; Stephen O'Brien; John P. Hutchinson (2012). Engineering Design: An Introduction. Cengage Learning. p. 359. ISBN 9781133708766.
^ J. P. Cooke (1872). "The chemical theory of the voltaic battery". Journal of the Franklin Institute. 93. Franklin Institute: 131–133.
^ Thomas Kubala (2012). Electricity 1: Devices, Circuits, and Materials. Cengage Learning. p. 10. ISBN 9781133710769.
^ Fernando Lopes da Silva (2005). "8. The EEG Signal: Polarity and Field Determination". Electroencephalography; Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 161.
^ J. Alan Chalmers (2015). "Chapter 10: The Thunder Cloud". Atmospheric Electricity. Elsevier Science. pp. 211–213. ISBN 9781483225432.
^ S. P. Bali (2013). "5.4 Voltage drop and polarity". Electrical Technology, Vol1: Electrical Fundamentals. Pearson Education. p. 72. ISBN 9789332517677.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the blow-it-up-and-start-over clause unless someone volunteers to rewrite it in an organized and comprehensible way that makes it clear the page is not redundant with electric charge, voltage, etc. We write articles based on what things are, not what they're called, and it makes more sense to explain the workings of electrical devices in existing articles of broader scope, rather than cobble together a semi-coherent story about a plus being here and a minus being there, based on scattered instances of jargon recorded over centuries. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: This page originally was created as a redirect to electric charge, so any redirection would be to that page again. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 09:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:XOR'easter I think -- it can only be wholly confusing to have this as a separate article without being written to properly reference those articles. This seems like one of those cases of "people in industry X use the term Y for what everyone who properly studies these things know is already called Z". Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment XOR'easter and Caleb Stanford pointed out my feeling when I read the article. And also appretiate SailingInABathTub's listing references here. From those references, what I see is that this concept is so closely related to Electrode, Direct current, etc., that I can't tell a way to make it a separate article from existing articles. Merging it into existing pages could be a good choice, though I doubt if there's anything new to merge into. Then blow it up until someone find a proper way to describe it as a stand-along article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerzeng (talk • contribs)
Redirect, don't delete. This is linked to 90 articles (and 10 redirects) to define polarity. The current article is terrible. Magnetic polarity redirects to a compact definition at Magnet#Polarity but there doesn't seem to be a good definition in any electrical article. I will add a short section to Electricity with the definitions of the four uses of polarity in electricity: the charge (+ or -) of a concentration of electricity (Franklin's first use of it as he charged up things), the + or - side of a battery (also from Franklin's era since he made batteries) or parts of a circuit, chemists use of polarity to describe the separation of charge in a molecule, and polarity as used by electricians for ac circuits to distinguish between the line or hot side (positive) and the cold side (negative) as in the polarized plugs we use. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (maybe to Electric current?), it's a reasonable thing people may search for, but it does probably need WP:TNT as an article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus to not keep the article in its current form but to redirect it. However there is no clear consensus on what to redirect it to, and whether the target article will need updating (perhaps with merged content).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sounds like an attempt to explain electricity to a general audience, but with no sources, it's hopeless to try and correct it. There are no electric poles like there are on a magnet, it basically goes in one side and comes out the other side from the battery or power source. It's either direct current in one direction, or alternating current in both directions, shifting rapidly. I'd just delete and not bother with a redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could redirect it to electrical batteries or the general electricity article? Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electric current, search results suggest that this is an informal term for direction of current. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:50, 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. As a case of WP:TOOSOON., no penalty against creating an article in the future should he have a more notable career than he does right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Dimitrov (racing driver)

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

Possibly a case of Too Soon, Notability and other smaller details ConcordeAAIB (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is felt that with the removal of page Louis Sharp, and the drafting of Eduardo Coseteng, this page is very similar in terms of notability, being too soon and lacking some indep sources. There is nothing really that represents more notability than Sharp did, maybe just with a few more wins but again if we are deleting or drafting other pages that are very similar to this, I feel we should be deleting this here, for the same reason as Sharp's page. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, Bulgaria, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. I have found a number of Bulgarian sources that might take it partly towards SIGCOV ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]) but ultimately I'd agree it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. MSport1005 (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Georgi Dimitrov has been racing for 12 years now internationally and is well know driver in UK, BG and Asia. Probna15 (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newmarket Academy pupil Georgi Dimitrov signs up to the F4 British Championship (suffolknews.co.uk) Formula Regional European Championship by Alpine, German Formula 4 and British formula 4 started the 2022 season at Spa and Donington Park | Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (fia.com) Georgi Dimitrov Statistics and Results | Motorsport Stats Georgi Dimitrov became Champion in Mini X30 class in British Karting Championship – SIN CARS Richardson Racing name talented trio for Ginetta Junior Championship programme - automobilsport.com Георги Димитров спечели четвъртата си победа за сезона на Силвърстоун | Pitlane.TV BRSCC | RICHARDSON RACING ANNOUNCE 2021 RETURN WITH GEORGI DIMITROV Probna15 (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all, except for the penultimate one, either a) WP:ROUTINE announcements or news coverage, b) Mere passing mentions or c) Databases. They do not count towards establishing WP:SIGCOV. Many drivers have been racing internationally for more than 12 years and aren't notable—ultimately the reality is Dimitrov is a teenager whose only experience in cars is Ginetta and F4. He is not well-known in the UK and Asia and it takes a very quick google search to prove that. (Edit: I also find it hard to believe how a 17-year old has been able to race internationally for 12 years when the minimum age for competitive international karting is usually no less than 8. Something doesn't add up.) MSport1005 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the first (Suffolk News) source plus https://formulascout.com/jhrs-dimitrov-holds-off-several-drivers-for-british-f4-win-at-donington/92703 and https://formulascout.com/british-f4-race-winner-georgi-dimitrov-moves-to-jhr-developments/91426 he seems notable. I am not very familiar with Formula Scout, it looks like a motor racing news website and there are bylines, so I assume it's reliable. If it is not, you should discount my !vote CT55555 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Scout is reliable but it is a very niche source and its coverage of drivers is often considered WP:ROUTINE. Sometimes they publish more extensive profiles of drivers that count as WP:SIGCOV, but usually their focus is on coverage of events or just routine announcements. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, it's not just about notability, its also a case of Too soon. No one else apart from him on the F4 grid have wiki pages now, and they shouldn't unless they get into a larger series, when they are older. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources I've seen above and in my own search are routine and not SIGCOV. Specifically, the first Formula Scout article is equivalent to cricket match play-by-plays: routine and often primary descriptions of a sports event as it unfolds. These do not count towards GNG. The second is essentially a refactored press release consisting of mostly quotes. More importantly, Formula Scout is not RS: there is limited info on their editing policies or their staff, but it appears to be written entirely through volunteers and specifically seeks amateur writers for this purpose. This sort of "unpaid internship" is exploitative and problematic and we really shouldn't be encouraging it. JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing to indicate notability. F4 is far, far too soon to be writing articles. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With Louis Sharp having been deleted, this page isn’t any different. There is not WP:SIGCOV and Dimitrov fails notability, a case of WP:TOOSOON. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2022

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cubas

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

Non-notable stand-up comic. Only mentions are promotional blurbs in local Austin-scene columns announcing stage appearances at local clubs, and there's not much of that. Had a couple of bit parts in a couple of non-notable films. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost three pages of hits in GNews, all from the Austin Chronicle, most explaining how he was the "hottest thing" for a month. Feel like there's a story here, can we use multiple articles from the same source to prove notability? Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, New York, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 22 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!} 23:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have some local celebrity cache, but once the routine show listings and whatnot are removed, the remaining coverage doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 6 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 vote to Draft:George Abagnalo. The article shouldn't be moved back into mainspace unless it can pass an AfC review. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Abagnalo

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

NN. We read that he "is a writer and actor". As a writer, he doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR. As an actor, he doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR. And more generally he doesn't seem to meet the occupation-nonspecific criteria of WP:PERSON either. Hoary (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Authors. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Working with Andy Warhol at the Factory is not enough for a standalone article. No significant coverage. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability and no evidence of notability. -Arch dude (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time responding to a delete suggestion so forgive me if format not correct. I would recommend this article stay up according to the following from the guidelines: "The general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." George Abagnalo is a well known figure in the Warhol community and is referenced in Warhol biographies as well as books about the New York scene in the 1960s and 1970s. (Books that mention him include: Superstar in a Housedress: The Life and Legend of Jackie Curtis; Warhol in Ten Takes; High on Rebellion: Inside the Underground at Max's Kansas City); Factory Made: Warhol in the Sixties).

He appeared in documentary "Beautiful Darling" about Candy Darling. (See imdb).

As the first critic to recognize the significance of Night of the Living Dead, he is mentioned in many books about Night of the Living Dead as well as books about cult movies and horror movies. A few titles include: Night of the Living Dead by Joe Kane; Night of the Living Dead by Ben Hervey; Cult Midnight Movies by Danny Peary; Slimetime: A Guide to Sleazy, Mindless Movies)

Maybe the author just needs to provide more citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efbrab (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading comments, I’m seeing that maybe I didn’t do a good enough job explaining the subject’s notability. I want to go back to revise it to explain things better. Would it help to add more citations (for example, reviews of the movie Bad) demonstrating that this is a well known work? Virginia G Nelson (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Virginia G Nelson:No. We already know the movie is notable: it has an article. To keep an article on Abagnalo, you need to document his notability, not just the notability of his works. Please carefully re-read WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACTOR, and WP:PERSON. To oversimplify, you need to find at least two articles in major newpapers about Abagnalo: more than a passing mention. If you cannot do that, then try to meet one of the criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACTOR. -Arch dude (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you-- I'm focusing on meeting the criteria for Creative Professionals. Virginia G Nelson (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Virginia G Nelson For those criteria, he needs to have been the sole creator of 2+ works that are notable in their own right (eg by WP:NBOOK or WP:NFILM). The suggestion by @Efbrab might give you some pointers too (if there are several paragraphs devoted to him in books on Night of the Living Dead, not just a passing mention of him, those will be useful to show notability under the basic WP:GNG guidelines; the other books might be useful too on the same grounds). I'm sorry you now have a seven-day deadline to do this work. I suggest submitting future articles through Articles for Creation until you're sure you have a decent handle on how notability guidelines work. There, no one will delete your article outright unless you don't edit it at all for six months. -- asilvering (talk) asilvering (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete I have already made a few points above but wanted to add my vote after reading more of the guidelines. It seems to me that the definitions of specific categories may not be necessary here as Abagnalo falls under "general notability" (GNG): He has received significant coverage in several reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Efbrab (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Efbrab[reply]
@Efbrab Indeed, if someone passes WP:GNG, then we don't need to look at the subject-specific guidelines. Can you point at which specific sources meet these criteria? (It's easiest for other editors trying to assess whether they agree with you if you can link to two to four sources that you think fulfil this requirement the best. Have a look at the short essay at WP:THREE for reasons/tips.) -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few: Superstar in a Housedress: The Life and Legend of Jackie Curtis;

Warhol in Ten Takes;

High on Rebellion: Inside the Underground at Max's Kansas City);

Factory Made: Warhol in the Sixties).

He appeared in documentary "Beautiful Darling" about Candy Darling. (See imdb).

Night of the Living Dead by Joe Kane; Night of the Living Dead by Ben Hervey;

Cult Midnight Movies by Danny Peary;

Slimetime: A Guide to Sleazy, Mindless Movies).

https://medium.com/@DavidA.Punch/night-of-the-living-dead-horrors-of-reality-manifested-in-the-flesh-46722bb15e8a Efbrab (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See note below momentarily. Short version: per Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-first close comment from @Virginia G Nelson: re-posted from here with formatting by Star Mississippi:
- I'm the creator of the George Abagnalo post that was deleted. I’m hoping you can provide some clarification and/or might be willing to reconsider. Please don’t think I’m being argumentative. As someone who is fairly new to Wikipedia, I’m generally confused about why he would not qualify and am concerned that I did not do a good enough job of documenting his notability. I thought he qualified under “author” and “creative professional” as a person "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique” because he was the first critic to appreciate the artistic value of The Night of The Living Dead and widely referenced as pivotal in its cult status today and he wrote the first American novel on privileged sexual abuse of patients within health care settings. The book was extremely ahead of its time published years before the USA gymnastics doctor was outed.

Also under “creative professional” it requires that "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)”

Abagnalo co-created Andy Warhol’s last film, Andy Warhol’s Bad, which is a well-known work and the subject of multiple independent reviews and as a novelist he created a “significant” groundbreaking novel that is the subject of multiple independent reviews. Here are some sources that I believe prove this point:

The Letter, Louisville, Kentucky, April 2002. p. 35 “Journey Into Sexual Darkness” by Bronson Majors (Review)

Excerpt: "’Boy’ is unabashedly literate...The author's highly refined literary skills help raise this story from the gutter into which it could have crawled...into the lofty reaches of fine literature...It's the kind of dark novel Dostoevsky or Conrad could have written had they been free in their culture and age to write of sexual matters.”

Seattle Gay News, July 5, 2002 “Boy On A Pony Will Shock And Intrigue You” by Robert Geller (Review)

Excerpt: “Abagnalo's early years at the Warhol factory appear to have influenced his artistic bent. There is real bite to his dialogue and a healthy inclination to shock. Boy on a Pony manages to take you where you may not even want to go and still has you begging for more.”

Wayves, Nova Scotia, Canada, November 2001 “A Compelling Read About the Bizarre World of Medical S&M” by Ralph Higgins (Review)

Excerpt: “An unsettling journey during which we must re-examine our ideas about dignity, abuse of power and our tendency to invest figures in professional positions with moral authority...A compelling story which will be remembered long after the final page is finished.”

Filmcritica Italy, Number 354, April 1985, pp. 243 - 245 “La Factory tra cinema, moda, e televisione” conversazione a cura di Gianfranco Graziani

Writer Gianfranco Graziani discusses the Factory and differences between Andy Warhol and Paul Morrissey with Jackie Curtis, George Abagnalo, and Taylor Mead.

- Would including these sources/reviews help to keep the article up? Or is there something else I’m missing? I apologize for the long winded response, I just want to understand what I need to meet the guidelines in the case of this article and for the future. Virginia G Nelson (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Closing admin comment relisted per request from @Asilvering: here: User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Abagnalo. While I think the consensus was to delete, I'm all for giving new editors time to understand process. AfC-contingent draftification would also be fine with me, but I'm not going to formally !vote as a prior closer. Star Mississippi 01:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why consensus is relevant. I read in the guidelines that Wiki is not a democracy where the most votes win. But rather decisions should be based on the criteria. I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm really honestly wondering. Efbrab (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and consensus is formed from an assessment of the criteria. Otherwise how do you get to a decision? Star Mississippi 13:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I get that but if there is an editor responsible for the decision, it's based on their judgment of the guidelines not the most votes. Otherwise people could gang up and prevent things from being approved.

In this case, I still haven't seen anyone explain why Abagnalo does not meet the criteria. He co-wrote a film that someone above already conceded is a significant part of the canon. And that's just one thing.

I feel like part of the issue here is procedural. The poster is a first-timer and that seems to have diverted some attention from the merits. Good points have been made on the process -- I've learned from it - but at this point I'm eager to hear the merits. Efbrab (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I made a judgement. @Asilvering came to me to ask whether I would reconsider it, and I did. They're now working with the creator to see whether it could be improved, whether that's here or as a draft. If you believe it should be kept, I'm not sure I'm following what your concern is with the current course of action. Star Mississippi 14:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No concern at all with it being reopened! I was happy to see that. I just have been hoping to hear specifically why it's not meeting the criteria. Efbrab (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Efbrab, the criteria you are talking about state The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. While it may look like he satisfies this according to a particular literal reading of this guideline, there are several problems with applying this to the movie Abagnalo co-wrote. For one, it's a film known for being an Andy Warhol film, not for being written by George Abagnalo, who was, say, a one-time filmwriter who wrote one absolutely brilliant film and then disappeared from the industry. For another, Abagnalo only co-wrote it, rather than having sole author credits. (And remember that these are general criteria for all kinds of creative work - editors are going to be more convinced by a "co-creator" argument for notability in a creative field that doesn't typically have credited co-creators.) Not to mention, it's the only notable film he ever (co-)wrote. It is very difficult to argue that Abagnalo is notable as a screenwriter. For an article on a screenwriter who is known for co-writing a significant film, take Herman J. Mankiewicz as an example. -- asilvering (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion here is what it means to be an Andy Warhol film. Warhol's name is in the title "Andy Warhol's Bad" but it is very much a film by Abagnalo and his co-creator. All of Warhol's films were highly collaborative projects. This particular one was a work by Abagnalo and the co-writer. They are the credited screenwriters of a project produced under the auspices of the factory.

As for whether he did other films, I don't see where that is required in the guidelines. It specifically says that a single significant work is sufficient: "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work".

As for him being a co-creator, the cited guideline clearly says that is sufficient.

Is Abagnalo as significant as Herman Mankiewicz? No, of course not. But that is not what the guidelines require.

And then there is his novel, and myriad other accomplishments already mentioned. Efbrab (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the confusion here. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (with the condition that the article go through the AfC process). Thanks to Star Mississippi for relisting. For context and disclosure, this article was a draft at AfC; as a reviewer, I declined that draft for unclear notability. The article creator then copy-pasted it to their sandbox and moved it to mainspace, avoiding AfC, and it was almost immediately tagged for notability and then put up for AfD. I do not believe that any of the actions taken about the article (the decline, the tagging, the AfD nom, or the close) were done in error. However, I want to argue for draftify (with the condition that it go through AfC!) on WP:IAR grounds: I would rather see a new editor who is confused about notability guidelines learn how they work (and hopefully get an article published) than have their efforts deleted (and leave in frustration). There are enough attempts at notability claims in the article that I think it is possible that Abagnalo meets notability guidelines; I cannot say that I feel compelled to do the digging and article-improving on an article I declined that was copy-pasted to mainspace, but I'm happy to help shepherd it through AfC if its creator is willing to work through the process. If ultimately the article is rejected for lack of notability, well, fine. Given that we have a nominator and two !voters who agree, that may well be the outcome. But I'd like to give the article creator a second chance to try to prove notability, somewhere less adversarial than AfD. @Virginia G Nelson:, if you would be interested in this possibility, please do say so here. -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering I'm interested in this possibility; what would the next step be? Virginia G Nelson (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Virginia G Nelson For now, we wait for this AfD to be closed; the result of that close is up to the closing admin, who will base their decision on their understanding of wikipedia's policies and their read of the consensus (or lack of consensus) on this page. In the meantime, I'll give you some suggestions/questions about the sources for the article (on your talk page, so it doesn't clutter this AfD or get deleted if that's ultimately what happens to this article). -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* New Secondary Source information: Blake Gopnik's recent biography of Warhol cites Abagnalo extensively about life in the factory - 14 times that I counted. Gopnik also offers a detailed discussion establishing Abagnalo's significant contribution to Bad: states that Bad was Abagnalo's idea (both plot and synopsis) and that he wrote the script with co-writer Hacket's job honing the dialogue. It describes Bad as "the most ambitious project ever to bear Warhol's name." And, unlike most Warhol films, this one had "an actual script." It also discusses Abagnalo joining the Factory as a teenager and Warhol being impressed with his knowledge of film. (Gopnik. Warhol. Ecco, a division of Harper Collins 2020). Efbrab (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Efbrab[reply]

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Berkowitz

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

Originally created by the sockpuppet, User:Francisco Fredeye, this article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements and was likely created as a Wikipedia:Autobiography Pictureofabear (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Plenty of hits in Israeli sources confirming information about him, some noting he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. While I'm worried when a sock puppet investigation comes up, I think this one might have merit. The article seems to use the same few sources over and over though. His name also pops up in the Mueller Report, which I assume is a reliable source, but they're mostly in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article absolutely needs work, I must vote keep as there is significant coverage all over the place. Lengthy pieces in Al Jazeera and other excellent news sources. Nobel prize nomination also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has WP:SIGCOV, in particular the extensive Business Insider piece and wide coverage in the Israeli press. While it was originally created by a sockpuppet 3 years ago, it has been extensively edited by other editors, so that isn't a factor anymore. Curbon7 (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on anything else, but Nobel prize nominees are not identified for 50 years after they are nominated, so that is just a piece of unverifiable boosterism. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ From what I can see, Avi Berkowitz really has no notable accomplishments to speak of except being a staffer for the Trump administration and assisting with the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords were not especially notable either. They were a simple reaffirmation of diplomatic relationships that already existed, underscored by a round of diplomatic visits to the Middle East by Jared Kushner and his staff (President Trump did not even attend these). The article for the accords is longer than the accords themselves. Further, Avi Berkowitz's role in the visits and the accords seem to have been especially minor.

As others have mentioned, being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is not noteworthy as anyone can be nominated for any reason. Finally, the references supporting this article are almost entirely about other subjects, only mentioning Berkowitz in passing. It looks like every mention of Berkowitz on the internet has been cited in this article in an attempt to make it legitimate. Given this and the fact that the article was originally created by a sock puppet, this article is likely an autobiography being used for personal gain.Pictureofabear (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again the fact that it was created by a sock has no bearing, as it has been heavily edited since its creation in 2019. Also, I've stricken your !vote here, as your nomination already counts as a delete !vote. Curbon7 (talk) 18:21, 8 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. in lieu of a formal keep since there are valid concerns about the policy basis of Kges1901's keep. That said, there's no large argument to delete being made either and it does not appear further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 01:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tercio "Gran Capitán" No. 1 of the Legion

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

Unsourced from inception; tagged for notability since 2019. A tercio seems to be the equivalent of a regiment, for clarity's sake. I could only find three sources, two ([24] [25]) of which are not independent of the subject, and the latter of which is not significant. The third is this, which, despite the headline, does not contain much information about the article subject itself. I'd argue that this needs at least two non-defensa sources for this to meet WP:GNG Iseult^Δxparlez moi 18:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This unit is the descendent of the Spanish Legion units that saw significant action in the Rif War and were a major element in the Fascist victory in the Spanish Civil War, where their role is detailed in the independent RS books by José E. Alvarez' The Betrothed of Death (ABC-CLIO) and The Spanish Foreign Legion in the Spanish Civil War, 1936 (University of Missouri Press). A quick Google books search[26] brings up pages of books in Spanish, including a history of the Spanish Foreign Legion that has detailed coverage of the unit's history after the Spanish Civil War. Kges1901 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901: wouldn't that be then inherited notability, which goes against policy? Iseult^Δxparlez moi 04:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because in military unit articles it is normal to cover the history of the predecessors of a currently active military unit in the same article. For example, a currently active unit like this that hasn't seen combat that would generate major coverage in a while would be covered along with the history of its predecessors. Kges1901 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand why some common practice would take precedence over WP:INHERITORG. One is precedent, whereas the other is actual site policy. If the unit's predecessor is notable, the predecessor should have its own article. If the unit itself is not, then it should not. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because when a military unit changes its name it does not become a different unit. This is a standard in military history. That's why military units take over the history of their predecessors. But in any case, per the long-accepted WP:MILUNIT, units of this size are generally considered to be notable for very good reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, that's an essay from a WikiProject, not policy; can you provide policy citations regarding size notability? Second, if it doesn't itself become a different unit but is only notable for its actions under the original name more than half a century ago, wouldn't the baseline be not to keep but to redirect? Iseult^Δxparlez moi 03:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an essay, but it's a widely accepted one written by people who know what they're talking about for good reasons. And why is the fact its most notable actions were more than 50 years ago relevant? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would appear to meet WP:GNG. But a rename would probably be a good idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 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!} 23:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 6 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. Discussion on whether to redirect or keep can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 02:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wish You Were Here (book)

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

Not sure this book is meeting Wikipedia:Notability. The article reads like a WP:Advert and seem to have been written by the book's author himself. The "Critical reception" is just a collection of blurbs used to promote the book, and the reference for this section is the "Praise" section on the editor's website. Gates of Ale (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Theresa Allore. Definitely written by the author. Some coverage here: [27], but I'm not sure how independent that is. I turned up several articles written by Allore himself and an excerpt of the book, but not independent reviews. Considering how much non-independent coverage I have found, that is a surprise to me, so maybe there's something lurking...? But it looks like the non-promo content of this article would be better covered on the article on her death anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Montreal Gazette published an excerpt from the book [28] and a review in Pop Sugar [29], and a Deadline article [30] confirming Netflix has bought the rights to the book, I think it's at least GNG. There is also a book by Jody Picoult with the same title, as the above sources showed. This crime thing book is discussed by the CBC here [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the web. The Montreal Gazette article is the excerpt from the crime book [32] and an article in the Calgary Herald [33] seeming to be the best. It's discussed on a few true crime blogs, but I think the CBC and the Calgary paper are good enough, the Montreal paper really only helps prove GNG as it just reprints part of the book. Globe and Mail has an article here [34] and coverage in French in La Presse [35]. I think that's enough. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b Thanks for turning up the Herald article. fyi, the Gazette piece is an advertisement; publishers of non-fiction books often have sections printed in newspapers and magazines to drum up interest in their books. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 13 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 Milton Friedman#Criticism of published works. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Milton Friedman

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

redirect based on dated section ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 00:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue: The section was renamed: it should be redirected to this section now. Jarble (talk) 01:11, 6 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.

[1] Harold Bloom, ed. (2009). Benjamin Franklin. Facts On File. p. 29. ISBN 9781438117027.

[2] John R. Karsnitz; Stephen O'Brien; John P. Hutchinson (2012). Engineering Design: An Introduction. Cengage Learning. p. 359. ISBN 9781133708766.

[3] J. P. Cooke (1872). "The chemical theory of the voltaic battery". Journal of the Franklin Institute. 93. Franklin Institute: 131–133.

[4] Thomas Kubala (2012). Electricity 1: Devices, Circuits, and Materials. Cengage Learning. p. 10. ISBN 9781133710769.

[5] Fernando Lopes da Silva (2005). "8. The EEG Signal: Polarity and Field Determination". Electroencephalography; Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 161.

[6] J. Alan Chalmers (2015). "Chapter 10: The Thunder Cloud". Atmospheric Electricity. Elsevier Science. pp. 211–213. ISBN 9781483225432.

[7] S. P. Bali (2013). "5.4 Voltage drop and polarity". Electrical Technology, Vol1: Electrical Fundamentals. Pearson Education. p. 72. ISBN 9789332517677.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiance Media Group}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Right Services (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoomcar (2nd nomination)}}