Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 15

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ambrosiawater (talk | contribs) at 11:01, 15 March 2023 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstar Pride (rapper).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 14 March 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar Pride (rapper)

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

Fails WP:BASIC not a notable rapper yet. Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has a charted single and is covered in the Billboard link and XXL magazine. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It did documents the subject notability as per Wiki:criteria for musicians for it to be enwik must pass this following criteria guideline of which in it says any article that:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following, which are: •Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. •Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. •Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Teepain (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Malcom Morgan

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

Curator and director of art nonprofit, fails WP:GNG coverage hyper-local, specialist and incidental mentions in coverage of Judy Chicago rather than Malcom-Morgan herself. Lacks SIGCOV, fails WP:NARTIST; WPNACADEMIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I am striking out your comment, as this falls under WP:OUTING. Curiocurio (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curiocurio: Yes..."unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information...on Wikipedia". User:Jerahcordova (aka, "Jerah Cordova"), the former mayor of Belen, left a message on my talk page saying "I'm the mayor of Belen, NM". Unless I'm missing something, please revert your edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, the 2nd paragraph of WP:OUTING says that use of information that is self-disclosed on-wiki is not considered outing. That seems to cover the "former mayor" part. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added "Megan Malcom-Morgan, was executive director of TTF at that time" with citation to the Womanhouse#50th Anniversary in 2022 entry. I still think it is a delete rather than a redirect. Even if it is WP:CHEAP, she just not notable, yet. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Boughey

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Cant find anything on him. Been on the cat:nn list since 2011 and never been updated. A WP:BEFORE shows the briefest mentions of previous positions. Fails WP:NPROF. There may be a significant body of work pre-internet that should be looked at. The lost two decades before 1995-1996 scope_creepTalk 09:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Christopheronthemove: The normal course of action here to find at least three references per WP:THREE. scope_creepTalk 10:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've identified a five-page profile in the book Bangkok by Design: Architectural Diversity in the City of Angels (no preview, added as further reading), and there are quite a few mentions in Google Books results, including in relation to his work in Bangladesh. Draftifying is unlikely to help; if the subject is notable, the article can be improved in Mainspace. (As a side note, the article was previously PRODed in 2012, though that was before {{old prod}} became standard practice.) --Paul_012 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also subject of a Master's thesis[1] and journal article[2] published by the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (E/C) A profile and interview in the book Conversations with Architects Series: คุยกับสถาปนิกต้นแบบ[3]. Having been named Architect of the Year by the Association of Siamese Architects in 2004, thee association would have very likely published an award citation. Keep, considering all the above. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is stuff out there. I found this on Kamalapur Railway Station, but it really boils down to incidental mentions as being one of the architects who worked on the building for Louis Berger and Consulting Engineers. This piece tells us "Boughey was one of the five American professors of architecture, who taught at the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, when the university begun the program in 1962." (again in reference to Kamalapur station). You could argue that a photograph of an architect's work shown at MoMA somehow contributes towards notability, or this piece which extensively discusses the importance and impact of the Kamalapur building in the context of the city of Dhaka. This UNESCO Jury Profile tells us, " In 2004, the Association of Siamese Architects named Mr. Boughey Architect of the Year." - not the strongest of RSes but I think it points to a significant award. Add this book on Thai architecture, featuring Boughey's 'Intanate House' and then there's this, a thesis and therefore not RS, but a document that certainly points to an enduring and significant architectural legacy. I started typing this as a delete vote but I've talked myself into Keep! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Thailand. Worldbruce (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two potential sources: A search of EBSCO's "Art & Architecture Source" returned: "Critical review of the idealized tropical house; Bangkok". Abitare. No. 265. June 1988. pp. 164–169. ISSN 0001-3218. A search of The RIBA Library Catalogue returned: "Leben in den Tropen [Living in the Tropics]; Architects: Robert G Boughey & Associates". MD. Vol. 35, no. 1. January 1989. pp. 83–87. ISSN 0343-0642. There is also a scarce book which, though not independent and thus not helpful in establishing notability, might help with the "anything on him" problem: Robert G. Boughey and Associates (RGB) (1993). Chadanuch, W. (ed.). Robert G. Boughey. Bangkok: Key Pub. OCLC 857082923. Could someone with access to ProQuest's "Art and architecture archive I and II" search there as well? Searching in relation to Louis Berger Consulting Engineers (now Louis Berger Group) might be useful too. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as though we are almost there. scope_creepTalk 09:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outer-grazer

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

It would appear to me that the reason this article (and its twin, and its French cousin) has attracted no references since it it was created in 2004 is that it is a neologism created... who knows? I certainly don't - that has not been accepted into the standard glossary of astronomy. WP:BEFORE done and it would appear that this term only appears in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks of this article. A search for this term in the Astrophysics Data System yields nothing of substance. In my opinion, the WP:NOTNEO test for neologisms applies here, and in 2023 that test is not passed. As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion was split between keeping and merging, while the merge !voters were evenly split as to target. The delete position did not reach consensus; this defaults to keep, but there is no reason that merge discussions cannot occur as a normal editorial process. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circular fashion

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

look like an advertisement with no reliable sources Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While there are corporations that claim to be "circular," but since the EU commission has policies centered around this term, I think it is a topic relevant for Wikipedia users and the general public. Blokkhedd (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Ohnoitsjamie. The sources are just overviews of circular economy in the fashion context. Those that actually mention the term circular fashion do so amid other invented circular jargon. small jars tc 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are lots of published papers using the term 1. Even if it is just a subset of the concept of the circular economy, thats not a reason for delete. JMWt (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist. I am interested in thoughts on the merge target. Two options have been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems like a notable thing, meets WP:GNG as evidenced by:
  1. Blum, P. (2021). Circular Fashion: Making the Fashion Industry Sustainable. United Kingdom: Laurence King Publishing.
  2. Circular Economy in Textiles and Apparel: Processing, Manufacturing, and Design. (2018). United Kingdom: Elsevier Science. (Section 2.3 is "Circular fashion" and coverages pages 23 to 29)
  3. https://www.ecotextile.com/2023031630488/materials-production-news/australia-sets-out-circular-fashion-ambitions.html
  4. https://www.glossy.co/fashion/weekend-briefing-the-ongoing-logistical-challenges-of-circular-fashion/
  5. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230227-how-to-recycle-your-clothes (three mentions of the phrase, or the phrase reversed)
  6. https://www.elle.com/fashion/trend-reports/a43325427/circularity-fashion-sustainability/
Article could be significant expanded, no reason to delete or merge. As per WP:ATD: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page CT55555(talk) 23:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there is a consistent definition of "circular fashion" between these sources that significantly differs from the meaning of "sustainable fashion"? One of the articles contains this definition, the concept that we can produce goods that cause no harm to the planet in manufacturing and that all parts can be reused, which seems to be the same thing. small jars tc 13:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great question. When I !voted I did not consider that. Now you ask, my assessment is that circular fashion (creating a closed-loop system in the fashion industry; all about movement of items) is a specific approach within the broader field of sustainable fashion (a more overarching term that encompasses a variety of practices and approaches aimed at reducing the negative environmental and social impacts of the fashion industry).
i.e. circular fashion is part of sustainable fashion.
In this context I would normally be assessing if circular fashion should be merged and part of sustainable fashion. However, noting WP:SIZERULE and that Sustainable fashion is about twice the length of the Almost certainly should be divided category, I think that supports my initial keep !vote.
That said, I'm an open minded person, tell me if you disagree. CT55555(talk) 14:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

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. While on a pure nose count this might fall into "no consensus", two keep arguments were "other stuff exists", which is not a policy-based rationale to retain an article. The others did present some reference material, but most arguments agree that it's not sufficient for an article at this time. This is of course a case where future events may change that and permit an article down the road. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Lawson

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any occupation based notability criteria. Hitro talk 08:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTALBALL as well as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Policy-based inclusion rationales are essential at AfDs. Hitro talk 07:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero notability outside the reality show. And as we have seen recently in a spate of AfD's for Survivor show winners, just being on or even winning one of these reality shows is not grounds in and of itself to be considered notable.Onel5969 TT me 00:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't find the "every other Bachelor(ette) lead has their own page" reasoning compelling considering the decline in popularity of the series generally would explain why Lawson would not have her own. Past leads may have received significant coverage that warranted an article, but this one doesn't look like she has. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify, I assume a lot of coverage will come when the new season of The Bachelorette starts in June. And she is the main lead of the next series, so this is not a bit role. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep This People article talks a bit about her history/life [4] and this in Cosmo [5]. Coverage in Variety [6] She's not New York Times material, but there is some coverage. Did either side asking for it to be kept or deleted even look? Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG, per Oaktree b. Would be reasonable to argue that this is WP:TOOSOON, since she will receive additional (and hopefully better) coverage when her season airs, but I think a draft is not likely to be helpful (as this is likely a popular search term, so keeping the page title in mainspace is important). Looks like her season currently exists as a redirect, so I would have no problem with a redirect to The Bachelorette (American season 19)... but that could only be a temporary solution until the season article is live. Suriname0 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Google A Day

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

2-3 refs could definitely be scraped together, but coverage seems to not be WP:SUSTAINED. google search gives most recent news sources as 2015. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Collecott

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found some sources [7][8], but it's just mentions. I'm not sure I understand what makes an ambassador notable, but this one doesn't look like he is. And the article looks like LinkedIn, not an encyclopedia data. KhinMoTi (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for Saddam

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the copious sources that mention it are as a passing mention on the game Quest for Bush and on Wafaa_Bilal's "Virtual Jihadi" modification of the Bush game, both of which received extensive coverage (unlike this game). Examples include: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. There is nothing to merge to either article, so a straight delete should be fine here.

There's a somewhat odd story behind this nomination. Back in 2015, I was one of the only participants in an AfD for Quest for Al-Qa'eda, and I suggested that this article also be nominated for deletion. I'm following through on that nom 8 years later today. Nomader (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Found these sources. [18], [19], [20] [21] . Apparently, there was some coverage of the game on FOX News and CNN according to the last source. Timur9008 (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for digging these up (I'm slightly embarrassed I didn't do a newspapers.com search before nominating, so thanks for doing it). Worth flagging that the first two are press releases/market wire releases. The quote at the top of the site clearly seems to be sarcastic or a joke as well, but there was an interview on MSNBC that's definitely worth flagging here. I looked into all three of the networks listed on the site below. Nomader (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • MSNBC did a full interview segment (!!) with the creator of the game. It's pretty wild honestly. At one part the anchor says, "all these publications and reviewers are calling you a legit designer! They're saying, was it Wired magazine, Game Informer, Computer Games magazine, Gamingrevolutions.com, they're giving positive reviews of this game" -- but I've found none of these. Searching now. [22]
      • Fox News mention is passing, in the context of Virtual Jihadi, and doesn't contain any reviews of the show. [23])
      • CNN gave it a brief passing mention in 2003 on Wolf Blitzer's show in a "look at other headlines around the world segment." It featured a tiny clip of gameplay and the following commentary: "Quest for Saddam" is debuting at the Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles. The creator is just 19-years-old." Other CNN sources only mention it in the context of the Bush game ([24], [25]).
        • I'm still standing by my nomination for now. It's clear from further searching that the game was renamed sometime in 2002-3 to "Quest for Saddam" from its original name, "Quest for Hussein." I haven't found any of these articles that the MSNBC interviewed mentioned, and candidly, judging by the website, I'm not sure it actually received that coverage (the interview is extremely fawning and may not have investigated things here). It's worth noting that Wired in particular maintains a very detailed database of its old stories and hosts everything, but it isn't there at all -- if anyone has scans from around 2002-3, might be worth looking into. I've also found a couple of passing mentions of the game at its old name: [26] (an article from the Boston Globe about whether to call Saddam Hussein "Saddam" or "Hussein" and is a passing mention) and [27] (Philly Inquirer column that uses the game as a framing narrative to talk about games that feature killing terrorists). Nomader (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've gone through and added some of the sources (including the Detroit Free Press piece) to the article, along with context about it being a part of Quest for Bush. I could also see an argument to be made where the page is merged into Quest for Bush -- the latter has a ton of sources and a really good article could be written about it. Nomader (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found books that write about it:
  1. We Are Iraqis: Aesthetics and Politics in a Time of War. (2013). United States: Syracuse University Press. Page 99 is mostly about it. I'd call this significant coverage, people could debate that.
  2. Anthropy, A. (2012). Rise of the Videogame Zinesters: How Freaks, Normals, Amateurs, Artists, Dreamers, Drop-outs, Queers, Housewives, and People Like You Are Taking Back an Art Form. United Kingdom: Seven Stories Press. (also half a page, borderline significant coverage in my assessment)
  3. Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical Play: Radical Game Design. United Kingdom: MIT Press. (most of a page, but larger book, more writing than the two above, I'd call this significant)
Like the above books do, academic papers also discuss the racial/ethnic and natioanlistic elements of the game:
  1. BILAL, W. Curated Spaces. Radical History Review, [s. l.], n. 117, p. 139–148, 2013. DOI 10.1215/01636545-2375232. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=90650133&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 mar. 2023.
  2. HODGE, P. M. Manifesting Extinctathon: Virtual Reality and Terrorism in Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake. Global Media Journal: Indian Edition, [s. l.], v. 13, n. 1, p. 1–22, 2021. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=155700174&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 mar. 2023.
I actually find it surprising that both books and academic papers wrote about this game. It seems unusually notable. Also surprising that this has not been discussed above. CT55555(talk) 23:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But again though, we see that all of this context is based around Quest for Bush and Virtual Jihadi. @CT55555:, I think you've made an excellent argument that Virtual Jihadi should be expanded and possibly spun out from Wafaa Bilal's page, but at best, Quest for Saddam should be a background sentence for it and for Quest for Bush. It is simply not notable on its own.
  • The "We Are Iraqis" book's section is an extensive discussion.... of Quest for Bush or in this case, referring to it as Night of Bush Capturing. It highlights how the game used Quest for Saddam to create this other work.
  • The Anna Anthropy piece feels like it more directly addresses the game itself, and I think could be used for notability... but it's still presented in the light of Quest for Bush, which is where its significance comes from and only talks about Quest for Saddam in half a paragraph. (She is definitely a reliable source and is a prolific writer of both independent video games and about their creation, as a note here).
  • The Flanagan book is a really interesting piece..... on Bilal's "Virtual Jihadi" game that I mentioned in my nomination. It extensively discusses it.
  • The first "Curated Spaces" article again is a great piece on Bilal's "Virtual Jihadi" game which is again a modification of Quest for Saddam. It contains no information about Quest for Saddam. It is also extremely similar in the text that appeared in the "We Are Iraqis" book and appears to have been written by Bilal himself on both occasions (also using the same "the widely marketed video game" language).
  • The last source is actually worse than all the others. It literally says, " In 2006, Al Quaeda altered the video game Quest for Saddam, a first-person shooter game that allowed the player to capture Saddam Hussein, into Quest for Bush, thereby completely reversing the player’s aim. ISIS also released a jihad version of Grand Theft Auto and its android app called The Dawn of Glad Tidings."
I think it's clear based on your exhaustive search that there is *not* coverage of Quest for Saddam independently that makes it notable. Trust me, I've searched everywhere for it too, and everything that comes up is stuff like this. It should be at best a "background" sentence or two for these other topics. Nomader (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of the coverage is a fair point to disagree on, even if I am not convinced. Do you consider that the game inspiring, or being the template for, others helps establish notability? From my perspective, I find it strange to accept the the spins offs are notable, but the original inspiration is not. CT55555(talk) 16:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly isn't a common thing that we run into here on Wikipedia that's for sure! I don't think it necessarily does TBH, I really wish there was more independent coverage of the actual source here.
After reading through source after source, it seems clear to me that the only things saying that it "got significant coverage" is actually from Bilal talking about and promoting his own creation, Virtual Jihadi, and that weird MSNBC interview that I cited above where the interviewer takes at face value that it was covered in other places, but doesn't actually seem to be? I think this is really pushing me towards significantly improving both the coverage on Quest for Bush and Virtual Jihadi so a redirect can feel like a realistic ATD instead of deleting a reasonable place where all of this information can live. If this article ends up being kept and this discussion is closed, I may ping you for a gut check if a redirect would be appropriate later on. Nomader (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, being the inspiration for games does not confer notability. Everything is considered in a vacuum and it would be the same as arguing your clone of a famous, notable video game inherits notability from that famous game. It's possible that a game inspired by something can reach far greater heights of fame than its inspiration. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to China General Aviation as an WP:ATD Salvio giuliano 08:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tongyong Airlines

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. No sources available with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from I RS. No objection to a redirect to parent company if consensus exists.  // Timothy :: talk  08:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a draft. CARLITOAHUISA (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The company operated a single aircraft and doesn't exist anymore, you really think SIGCOV from I RS will appear?  // Timothy :: talk  11:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is GNG met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1947 Amritsar train massacre

1947 Amritsar train massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, almost the entire article is sourced from a single news article from 26 September 1947; several train massacres happened during the partition of India in 1947, this one in particular isn’t especially notable of them all. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it would be a strange world if an event where thousands of people were attacked and killed was somehow not notable. There are contemporary newspaper reports that are easily found and historical studies that put the events in the context of that particularly horrific period. That's surely enough.
It may well be the case that there were other, horrendous, attacks in that period that have similar sourcing. I don't see this as any kind of logical argument for !delete, if anything it suggests an urgency to ensure that en.wiki covers all of these events. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't the only news article. I see articles from Reuters, (which quotes the West Punjab Ministry of Refugees from 30 September 1947), the AAP ("3418 Dead and Missing, 1328 Wounded") from 25 September 1947, the Chicago Daily News (first line "life is cheap in the Punjab these days..) from 27 September 1947. Not all the details are the same, but to say that the WP is not notable because there was/is little newspaper coverage is just wrong. JMWt (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The event the article is about fails WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You previously said quote "The 3,000 deaths are obviously notable. What’s not notable is the coverage of this massacre."
So which is it? JMWt (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any indication that this subject is notable on its own. Rather it is one of the many violent incidents that took place in the whole partition event. Capitals00 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may not currently cite WP:DIVERSE WP:INDEPTH coverage, but it appears that coverage exists in multiple newspapers internationally and over period of time, suggesting the article can be improved rather than deleted. --Mgp28 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this particular event does not receive any wide ranging coverage in newspaper that exists “over period of time”. All the international coverage are a couple news articles, from within one week of the event. Beyond that it is just one of the many incidents from August-November 1947, and should be included in an article about those events based on how much is WP:DUE. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've found multiple articles from around September 1947 but agree I haven't found later articles specifically about this event. (It's quite bleak that there was so much suffering 3000 deaths could almost be forgotten from the written record.) I see above you suggested merging this with other train massacres of the period. I can see that that could make a good article but I think we should keep this current article until that any such merge takes place. --Mgp28 (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While you’re at it, could you look up news articles for 1947 Kamoke train massacre, 1947 Haranpur train massacre and 1948 Gujrat train massacre? The first two happened in September 1947, the latter in January 1948. Please post any articles you find to my talk page, thanks. Since we’ve decided all partition train massacres with scant news coverage deserve their individual articles, it’s only fair to create these articles. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure anyone decided there should be multiple articles. I thought your suggestion of an article combining information about all these train massacres could be a good one, and that this article could merge into that. But my opinion is that until that time, we should not delete this article. --Mgp28 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (responding to ping), but my views differ from that of the nom, who pinged me. I think the nominator has a fair point about coverage, but it's utterly implausible to me that a killing of this size in Amritsar would be covered in The Advertiser of Adelaide, and nowhere else. There is certain to be coverage in UK/US newspapers that someone with newspapers.com access, and a little time, could find. There was definitely coverage in Indian newspapers too, but I'm not sure if archives from that period are accessible outside specialist collections. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already did that, above. JMWt (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and instead incorporate its contents, in a WP:DUE manner, into a general article about Partition violence/train massacres during the Partition. On it's own, the event of the article has no indepth diverse coverage that has persisted over the years. All coverage seems limited to September-October 1947, there are no secondary sources that discuss the event years—or even months—after the initial September reportage. It doesn't even get a passing mention in contemporary works on the partition, such as Talbot and Singh's 'The Partition of India' (2009) or Yasmin Khan's 'The Great Partition' (2007). Not even in the detailed, Punjab-specific 2011 work of Ishtiaq Ahmed. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You were the nom. You can't !vote twice. JMWt (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, boldface removed. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (responding to ping). With this much distance in time, we need to defer to scholarly sources to identify what are notable events and how to cover them in an encyclopedia. Newsreports from 1947 are vastly inadequate. The title of the page is also pretentious in assuming that there was only one train massacre at Amrtsar in 1947. The earliest I have seen mentioned was in March 1947, when an inbound train carrying Hindus and Sikhs was sacked near Amritsar (Ahmed Ishtiaq).[1] Even in September 1947, we can't be sure there was only one train massacre at Amritsar. TrangaBellam added a scholarly citation to say that this was definitely notable. But this particular massacre is not mentioned in the source, despite the source being exclusively on train massacres. Neither does the Ahmed Ishtiaq book mention it. I think an article on train massacres of the partition of India would be a worthy topic for an article, because the phenomenon is frequently alluded to by everybody that talks about partition, but not any single of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    News reports from 1947 are vastly inadequate? What on earth is that piece of logic based on? A newspaper report from 1896 is as good as one from 1986. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , for now; another couple of years (was pinged). This is a tricky one. This article has been around for a couple of years. It cites the Australian-AP report, a primary source. I looked at my copy of Ian Talbot's Divided Cities: Partition and its Aftermath in Lahore and Amritsar: 1947–1957, OUP, Karachi, 2006 and a related journal article. There is no mention of this train massacre, but then there is little mention of trains (beyond the last wave of anti-Hindu-Sikh violence beginning in Lahore after a train full of dead Muslims arrived in Lahore from Amritsar.) The trains were special, ad hoc, trains, that can't be referred to as "Frontier Express etc."
But, it's also been a dogma in the partition literature for years that Hindus and Sikhs were killed in Lahore and Muslims in Amritsar. I remember visiting the Jallianwala Bagh, an iconic site of Indian nationalism, where troops or police under Dyer had shot 300 defenceless Indians in 1919, spurring Gandhi to the forefront, but thinking while standing there, that thousands of Muslims were killed here 30 years later and there is no monument. For all the apologies demanded by the Indian nation, and later offered by David Cameron, no apology, not even regret, has ever been offered for the Muslim deaths in Amritsar or the Hindu and Sikhs in Lahore. For all these reasons, keep for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also remember from British accounts that the Sikh Jathas and the ex-Indian-National-Army men, recently released, which was both Hindu-Sikh and Muslim, but more of the former, were particularly vicious in their violence. So much for the Hindu-nationalist claim that Subhas Bose, latterly their darling, would have prevented the partition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-August-1947 violence in Amritsar was predominantly anti-Sikh-Hindu. But after August, as initially the rumors and then news of the award of Amritsar to India spread, the violence was largely anti-Muslim, including that perpetrated on trains. Here is Talbot (referred to above), pages 46 to 48. It has more than I had initially thought. What it describes as the general atmosphere and trend of violence in Amritsar in the days following the boundary award in mid-August, makes such a massacre more plausible, though not definite, and therefore worthy of keeping until more definitive details emerge:
Excerpts from Ian Talbot, Divided Cities: Partition and its Aftermath in Lahore and Amritsar 1947–1957, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 46–48

"News was also reaching the city (Lahore) of heavy Muslim casualties in Amritsar and its surrounding villages. According to a US report, Muslim deaths were in the proportion of 3:1 in the city. (Footnote: 73. Telegram 19 August 1947, New Delhi to Secretary of State, Central File 845.00/8-1947, National Archives Washington) ... Mountbatten noted in his personal report of 16 August that armed Sikh bands were raiding Muslim-majority villages in the Amritsar district at the 'rate of three or four each night." In the city of Amritsar 'the casualties to Muslims have been alarmingly high' he wrote, following the disarming of the Muslim police by the new Hindu additional superintendent of police.(Footnote 81: Viceroy's Personal Report 16 August 1947, cited in Government of Pakistan, Disturbances in the Punjab 1947 (Islamabad 1995), p. 355). The Muslim constables were replaced by ex-INA men, many of whom joined rioters in the assaults on the remaining pockets of Muslim population within the walled city... Muslims had poured into Sharifpura, which was cut off from the rest of the city. In the weeks leading up to independence it had served as a kind of field hospital and military training area for the Muslim population. ... By 14 August, Sharifpura's population had swollen to 100,000. People sat in the streets surrounded with whatever belongings they had been able to rescue. This Sharifpura refugee camp faced severe deprivations in they days immediately after independence. Mass evacuation was organized through special trains which ran twice daily, taking 5000 people in each trip. 'The railway track was not far from Sharifpura', an eyewitness recalls. 'We came to Lahore by train on 16 or 17 August. Every train came under attack.(Footnote 86: Interview with Dr. Khwaja Muhammad Zakria, Lahore, 23 October 2004. I am grateful to Tahir Mahmood for conducting this interview.)

I may not have remembered as precisely, but my general observation is borne out in Talbot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have now added two modern secondary sources: Marian Aguiar, University of Minnesota Press, 2011 and G. D. Khosla, Oxford University Press, 1989, along with a primary source from 3 October 1947 (with quote) footnoted in Aguiar. I think the sources are pretty watertight. It is time to end this AfD as Keep. Pinging @UnpetitproleX, JMWt, Necrothesp, TrangaBellam, Vanamonde93, Alexandermcnabb, Mgp28, and Capitals00: Thanks UnpetitproleX, for bringing this up. Finding the sources was fun, especially the quote from the British Railway Gazette, October 1947, quoted in Maria Aguiar. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is the precedent this sets. During the August to November period a large number of these massacres happened. The one at Kamoke is covered in some detail by Ishtiaq Ahmed, including an eyewitness account.[2] He cites the GD Khosla report, a Tribune article, and Disturbances in the Punjab, Islamabad: NDC, 1995. If we take bits and pieces from contemporary news reports and modern scholarship, dozens of such articles can be concocted (Kamoke, for instance, can be written right away). Which is why I believe a single article on the train massacres is much, much better. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue with a dozen such articles where they are supported by reasonable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your improvements, Fowler. And UnpetitproleX, I am sure an article about the train massacres will be very valuable, but I also think that having well-sourced information about individual massacres enhances rather than detracts from this. Thank you all, Mgp28 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to create a page on Partition violence in Amritsar, I would have no objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ahmed, Ishtiaq (2012), The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed: Unravelling the 1947 Tragedy through Secret British Reports and First-Person Accounts, OUP Pakistan, Chapter 7, ISBN 978-0-19-906470-0, A vicious attack on an incoming train took place just outside Amritsar at the Muslim suburb of Sharifpura, in which Hindus and Sikhs were hacked to pieces. It was another trigger for communal violence in Amritsar in early March.
  2. ^ Ahmed, Ishtiaq (2022) [2011], The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, Rupa/OUP Karachi, pp. 456–457
  • Delete One of the many attacks that happened in the partition. A mention on a broader article would be fine but a separate article for this incident isn't right. Orientls (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks to Fowler for some excellent digging. I do worry very much indeed that there is a subtext here among users effectively seeking to downplay these events. One article is enough to cover all massacres because there were so many and so many died so why would we condone celebrating every little massacre? is an argument I actually find chilling. I also worry about 'this is complicated so let's just leave it fuzzy'. If these incidents occurred (and they did) and they were documented (and they were) and with a little work we can create accounts of the events (we can), then why would they not merit standalone articles where there is enough depth to justify such an article? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also point out that other horrendous periods of history commonly have articles about individual atrosities on en.wiki. I don't even want to devalue the pages about events where thousands died by casually linking to them here - but we surely all have seen and read them. JMWt (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (was pinged). While a train massacres during partition article is an excellent idea, each incident probably deserves its own article as well. I agree that documentation may be hard to find but if there is any documentation (contemporary news reports for example) then we should have a corresponding article. --RegentsPark (comment) 06:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the many attacks that happened in the partition.Nothing significant for a separate article and it lacks sources.122.164.114.13 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The above vote being this IPs sole contribution to Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm getting quite tired of seeing repeated statements that suggest this event is insignificant when thousands of people are reported to have died. I don't know if I've stumbled into some kind of slow motion edit-war vortex about this period of history or something, but in my view we can't continue a calm AfD discussion when this is continually being repeated. I suggest that a passing uninvolved Admin now close this "debate" as no consensus and I'll attempt to formulate a form of words for a RfC where we can put to bed this argument once and for all. JMWt (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't worry about doing an RfC. This AfD is going to die a natural death. I'm sure more sources exist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, and in sympathy with your view on this, as the discussion stands it's a solid 'Keep' and I think this AfD could close as such and an RfC could then be opened on the subject of other similar incidents. However, this being kept would be a strong precedent for further AfDs, so the result could and should (as we stand) be the best one. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a stronger precedent than a simple !keep. I'm thinking of starting an RfC about the concept (ie whether an argument can ever be acceptable to suggest that an event where there were many thousands who died within the context of a wider bloody conflict is insignificant). In my view this is never an acceptable !delete argument. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not disagree. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above, there are plenty of sources to outline the main points of the event. Other issues do not pertrain to deletion, but article improvement.  // Timothy :: talk  20:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The issue of notability is due to the single source cited in the article. This is not a ground for deletion but indicates more sources are needed. Both the National Libraries of Australia and New Zealand have contemporary newspaper articles that describe this as India's Worst Train Massacre. So, I am sure there is ample global coverage in the newspapers of the time, but most of it is off-line, so will not be discovered by searching Google. There is a news chasam in the internet during the second half of the 20th century from when copyright still exists on newspapers and the use of the internet by newspapers during the 1990's. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources looks good. Plenty of in-depth coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first 3 sources cited in the article demonstrate notability 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfa

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

This page appears to be solely sourced to religious websites, making its contents wholly unverifiable and functionally useless from the perspective of Wikipedia's content standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this nomination is flawed. We have many articles about Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox bishops which are sourced entirely to sources related to their respective denominations. There are a few companions of the prophet about whom very little is known today, but most have been discussed constantly in Islamic scholarship for more than 1400 years because of their critical role in the transmission of Hadith. In any case there are sufficient sources in English for this to be a GNG pass (Google book search) without even looking in Arabic or other languages. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Google books shows two footnotes. Scholar hints at a few mentions, but the relevant passages are not apparent. There is nothing to currently indicate the presence of any non-trivial mentions of the subject in reliable sources. The page is just as poorly supported in its Arabic version. The other premise is also invalid. This individual did not play a major role in any tradition, because he ostensibly died in the Battle of Yamama, and thus was prevented from ever passing on whatever material he might have recollected. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
simply false. I find multiple sources (not including the ones I enumerate below) citing him as the source of Hadith. You’re just making it up. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Battle of Yamama. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it’s not true that the subject appears only in a couple of footnotes in a google book search. In English I get multiple pieces of coverage, including 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, with other instances too. From this we learn that the subject, on account of his exceptional knowledge of the Quran, led the community in prayer in Medina before Muhammad himself arrived, and that the caliph Omar stated that, had he lived, he would have made him his successor. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in Arabic, setting aside explicitly religious sites and only looking for substantive coverage in general sources that editors can auto translate, coverage includes two extensive profiles in daily news sources, 6 and 7, and this from wikisource 8. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While some Arabic news sources are reasonably sound sources for local news, and Youm 7 is generally speaking a respected publication, I don't think Arabic news sources are realistically reliable sources for Islamic biographies, and that Wikisource text is a primary source, so not super useful in of itself without supporting coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, You may be right in your overall assessment, but you should get rid of the first book that you list above. It lists Lulu, a well known self-publishing outfit, as its publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you I didn’t spot that. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be interesting to see the nominator respond to the newly identified sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Aoidh (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highways in England and Wales

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

This comes off as an essay/original research that would be more appropriate for Wikiversity. There are other articles on highways in England and Wales, see Roads in the United Kingdom. Rschen7754 06:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very odd reference to point to as it arguably shows the opposite; an argument about Right of Way also being a Highway. Anyway, random links aside, the point is that in 2023 under English law, Rights of Way in E&W are regulated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and Highways are regulated under the Highways Act 1980. So it makes zero sense to suggest that someone looking for information about Highways in E&W would find it at a page about RoW in E&W. Because they are different things with different laws. JMWt (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. The relevant part of that link is the paragraph that says A highway (that is to say, a way over which there exists a public right of passage for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely to pass and repass without let or hindrance)...; that's what a highway is. Not all Rights of Way are regulated under the CROW 2000, although I think that all public rights of way are. The CROW 2000 does affect highways where it modifies the Highways Act 1980 (at sections 57-59). But I think from what you say that your position is that highways and rights of way are distinct, if related, concepts? If so then our positions are very similar.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, but being a pedant, your para in green proves my point. A highway is a way.. with a public right of passage. Which is a relevant distinction historically when many ways in E&W were not public. That's not the same as a Right of Way. It may sound similar but the words are literally different and refer to different things. JMWt (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG easily and by a exceptionally wide margin. There are many books, and many periodical articles, that are entirely about highways in England and Wales. There is far too much coverage of highways in England and Wales, and far too much coverage of other rights of way in England and Wales, to merge both topics into a single article. Highways and rights of way are not the same thing. (An easement can be a right of way, but that certainly does not necessarily make it a highway. Some easements are private rights of way: [28] [29] [30][31]. Highways are always public rights of way: [32].). An article on highways is capable of being expanded beyond a definition, because there is a large body of law and literature relating to the consequences of being a highway (eg there is an offence of obstructing highways; a person can have a duty to maintain a highway; etc etc etc). This article does not violate WP:NOT. James500 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't doubt that the topic of highways in England and Wales is a notable one; what I question is whether the question of a legal definition of a highway in those countries is notable enough for its own article, and covered appropriately here (as opposed to some of the law articles linked to) in a way that doesn't violate WP:SYNTH. --Rschen7754 03:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTDICTIONARY says "articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content" (emphasis added). This article does not consist entirely of a definition. Even if it did, it could easily be expanded beyond a definition without violating WP:SYNTH or any other policy or guideline. Either way, this article should be expanded. James500 (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reference to Highways are always public rights of way is a Scottish Government document about the situation in Scotland.
    I don't know about Scotland, but in E&W highways are not always Rights of Way in the sense that the law defines it in E&W. JMWt (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I refocus you, JMWt? What's at issue here is whether this title should be an article, a redirect or a redlink, and you've yet to express a clear view.—S Marshall T/C 11:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is going to be quite hard, and quite dull, to write a meaningful page about this topic to be honest. I'm sure there are lots of books about the highways of E&W just like there are likely books about the towns and villages of England. I think that's way too vague a concept to have a WP page.
    If we are sticking to literal definitions of legal terms, the overlap with Highways Act 1980 would necessarily be large. If we are just going to waffle on vaguely about roads the overlap is going to be almost entirely with Roads in the United Kingdom.
    I don't think there is any real need for this page. I'm not sure it hurts en.wiki for it to exist so I'm not (strongly) !voting delete.
    Redirects are a problem as there is no obvious target. Tbh I highly doubt many would be directly typing Highways in England and Wales so the only question is how the wikilink is being used on existing pages. Others have strongly objected other possibilities and my only strong !vote here is against the motion that the best target is Rights of way in England and Wales for the pedantic reasons I've outlined above. JMWt (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes: it's definitely going to be a slog to write. That's likely why there have been so few edits since I started the article a dozen years ago. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be written, but in the meantime one option is to add pointers to the various Highways Acts that are currently in force, so the article becomes a stub with a disambiguation function.—S Marshall T/C 12:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Paragraph 1.73 of the joint report by the Law Commission (of England and Wales) and the Scottish Law Commission specifically says "In England and Wales". Therefore it is describing the situation in England and Wales, not the situation in Scotland. Highways are always public rights of way in England and Wales. (2) The overlap with the Highways Act 1980 is minimal. There are many other statutes relating to highways. There is a large body of case law relating to highways. [In particular, the concept of a highway already existed under pre-statutory common law and and still exists at common law. If you read volume 55 (Highways, streets and bridges) of the Fifth Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England, you will see that the very first topic it discusses is the (non-statutory) common law of highways, which still exists for purposes not covered by the legislation. Like much legislation, the Highways Act 1980 merely supplements the existing common law and does not abolish or replace it altogether for every purpose.] The article on the Highways Act 1980 cannot cover the pre-1980 history of highways law. Writing about a particular branch of the law is fundamentally different from writing about a particular statute. That is why you will find separate publications about highways law and separate publications about the Highways Act. There are separate publications because those publications fufill different purposes and provide different information in a different format etc. James500 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ok then I'm wrong. Good luck to anyone trying to write a WP page about all of that. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Notability concerns due to sourcing are valid concerns for a deletion discussion, one that is not outweighed by the subject being interesting, which is not a notability-granting aspect. Aoidh (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Adams

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

Originally a redirect to boy band Point Break, which would be the alternative to deletion for this actor and singer who has only had relatively brief and minor roles in either profession. Sourcing here doesn't demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG, let alone WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO - and there's little out there other than other Brett Adamses. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alexander, I have added some more interesting information to the page and I think it would be more beneficial to have information about Brett Adams rather than just a redirect page.
He was actually the lead character in Byker Grove for 5 season and shared one of the first gay male kisses on national TV, so I think it is an historic piece of pop culture and of importance. The band Point Break was also very popular back in the day and big in Japan and other countries and he was also one of the songwriters and well as just being a singer. So it is nice to have all the information that is out there gathered in one place... I will continue to add to it when I have time. Andrewjohnmoore (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information including WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO with verifiable book and website references.
Brett Adams was a lead character in BBC's Byker Grove from 1990 to 1995 (6 series) and had tracks with Point Break that where in the top 10 UK singles charts and an album in the top 20 that also charted around the world.
As well as sharing one of the first gay coming out stories and kisses on television in 1994. I think this alone is a reason to have a wikipedia article. Andrewjohnmoore (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khowai Government Higher Secondary School

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

Secondary school in Tripura, India, fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability, stub's a mess and sourcing worse - no RS presented and there's no more out there in the wild, wild web. "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Although, altogether now, we are guided against depending solely on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bertram Charles Butler

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

Unreferenced stub for 15 years. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of sources. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 08:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goonies Never Say Die

Goonies Never Say Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was contested but I'm still not convinced given the lack of coverage I saw in searching before I placed the PROD. Also not particularly convinced of Deep Elm Records' notability which makes me question the WP:BAND#5 claim. QuietHere (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, my original reasoning from the PROD:

Apparent non-notability. Even with an archive of the Rock Sound review and this one from PopMatters, I don't see enough to save this. Also worth noting the apparent CoI behind the page's creation.

QuietHere (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as prod contester; I added sources found by QuietHere and some of my own, which include coverage in major (international) music news outlets such as Pop Matters and Exclaim!. The article notes coverage in Alternative Press, which I can corroborate as I was subscribing to the paper magazine at the time (though I no longer have the paper copy, which is why I haven't added the footnote). I believe we can take the Metal Hammer review on good faith, as the others in the article have checked out, and offline sources are as good as online. That's enough to cross the threshold for bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saccharopolyspora salina

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

https://lpsn.dsmz.de/species/saccharopolyspora-salina States this is not validly published. This is likely because this comes from a predatory journal doi:10.3844/ajidsp.2009.90.98 Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is the authoritative list for that very question and we ought to abide by it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The journal being predatory has nothing to do with why this purported species isn't considered validly published. Nominator should know this by now since they participated in a previous discussion about that issue (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive_51#Nomenclatural acts published in "predatory journals"). The venue of publication is a problem, but not because it's predatory. Bacteria names can only be validly published in a single journal, the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. There are several other requirements for valid publication which haven't been met by the paper in question (it can be seen here); there is no formal statement that a new species is being named, there isn't a description that differentiates it from previously described species, and there is no indication that the requirement to deposit type strains in institutions in two different countries was met. In fact, it looks like the authors think that the species was previously described elsewhere: "A BLAST search of the 1273 bp 16S-rRNA gene sequence of the isolate showed 100% homology to Saccharopolyspora salina. The phylogenetic tree was constructed based on neighbor joining method shows that the isolate is most closely related to Saccharopolyspora salina" The sentences I've quoted don't make any sense unless there are previously published (perhaps in a database) gene sequences attributed to Saccharopolyspora salina. Maybe LPSN has a mistake about the publication where this name first appeared? But I'm not finding anything earlier. I'm not a molecular biologist, so I'm not very familiar with BLAST searches, but searching BLAST for Saccharopolyspora salina returns a record with ID 453831. Searching the NCBI taxonomy browser for Saccharopolyspora salina (which should be using the same IDs as BLAST) returns a record for Saccharopolyspora qijiaojingensis, with ID 453831 and no mention of salina. Plantdrew (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in this case, as the purported publication fails to meet the requirements for valid publication on many fronts. Valid publication is required by the logic of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, so that is not a good argument to keep. However, deleting all articles on bacteria solely on the grounds of not being validly published is not a good idea; Bacteria itself isn't validly published. Plantdrew (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterrânic Ensemble

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

Highly advertorialized and completely unreferenced article about a musical ensemble with no strong claim to passing WP:MUSIC. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which musical groups are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and rather they must pass certain specific markers of achievement and must have third-party coverage about them in real media to validate their significance -- but this cites no references at all, was created by an editor with the username "Mediterranic" in clear violation of conflict of interest rules, and is so highly advertorialized that I'd have speedy deleted it if it weren't already over a decade old. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley X

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

Non-notable business, nothing for sourcing found beyond press-releases. Sources used in the article are blogs and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 minutes after publication but okay :) Books are not blogs. The business is not non-notable as it's top in its niche. Vellaris321 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
actually 6 mins Vellaris321 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eynat Guez

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

non-notable business person. Beyond press-releases and brief interviews, nothing found for GNG sources. Awards won are non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the Papaya Global article in depth, from what I see, it looks like trivial coverage. I might take a look later. Oaktree b (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable woman, many good sources, see no reason for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guez is a prominent Israeli businesswoman and got a lot of media coverage, including lengthy newspaper articles. Tzahy (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would those who are arguing keep please be a little more specific as to which sources are reliable, in-depth, and have significant coverage. A little more in-depth analysis from the delete proponents wouldn't hurt anything either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A prominent Israeli business woman, who is also one of the leaders of the high tech demonstrations in Israel. She is often picked as one of the most influential women in Israel and in the global tech world. She has a significant coverage, and is currently one of the leaders of the demonstrations against the judicial revolution in Israel. She is the first and only women to lead an Israeli Unicorn.
The resources are of the leading Israeli newspapers, in all of them she got a profile story - Haaretz, Globes, Calcalist, Forbes, The Marker Vivitelaviv (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Schiffmann

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

The individual allegedly created a project that was popular during the coronavirus pandemic, but the coverage is not significant enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page. There is one award, but I'm not too certain about the signficance of the award. Seems to fail WP:GNG requirements. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable guy. New refs need to be added tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassiJevenn (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on his notability? I see that you've contributed to the page in the past. A good chunk of the sources when you Google the individual (including WWF, MIT Technology Review, and the New Yorker) about him seem to be written by him or largely quotes from him which does not present significant and independent coverage. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy has been featured in La Voix Du Nord (1), BFMTV (2), The Times Of Israel (3), Le Figaro (4), Web Foundation (5), CNEWS (6), Business Insider (7), The Times UK (8), Vanity Fair (9), ABC ES (10) and recently, in CNN (11)... the list goes beyond... I don't know how you can doubt he is still not notable ^^ CassiJevenn (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attached a source assessment table below. Some of the sources you listed are on the table, and the rest have the same issues. I suspect some level of churnalism is involved, if not the individual or someone close to them reaching out to media sources. The development of a popular website is not enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page. Many creators of popular websites do not receive a Wikipedia page. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you include the CNN page in the table? That recent one is very clearly not churnalism. Furthermore, Avi is not just a creator of one popular website. In the CNN article (which, for some reason, you don't include in the table), you can see all about his company and new office in SF, multiple websites created for Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, and other areas in crisis. Pretty much all the sources you use in your table are very old. There are new sources that establish notability. CraigSut (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source assessment table generated below are from the currently posted article, not the sources listed above. That is why CNN is not included. The creation of a website or multiple does not convey notability, neither does the coverage of them. If you would like to generate your own table, please feel free. The sources I'm seeing for Schiffmann's work (including InternetActivism) tend to largely consist of direct and indirect quotes from him which isn't significant coverage. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 07:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then don't suggest a deletion of the page. The CNN article indicates notability for Schiffmann. Instead, add issue templates about sourcing, etc. — not about notability. As CassiJevenn said above, "new refs need to be added tho" and "I don't know how you can doubt he is still not notable." CraigSut (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2193300/8-17-year-old-creates-worlds-biggest-online-coronavirus-tracker/ Yes ? unsigned, churnalism? No mostly quotes ✘ No
https://www.essentiallysports.com/teenage-gamer-turns-down-8-million-for-coronavirus-tracking-website/ Yes ? moot No mostly indirect quotes ✘ No
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/03/30/the-high-schooler-who-became-a-covid-19-watchdog Yes Yes No majority quotes ✘ No
https://www.timesofisrael.com/updated-every-minute-17-year-old-whiz-kids-coronavirus-site-used-by-millions/ Yes Yes No mostly quotes and filler ✘ No
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/avi-schiffmann-interview-the-teenage-tech-genius-who-built-a-coronavirus-tracking-website-78rvd093v Yes Yes No moot ✘ No
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/viral-sensation-seattle-kid-built-coronavirus-website-catches-eye-top-twitter-tastemaker/ Yes Yes ? moot ? Unknown
https://www.webbyawards.com/press/press-releases/winners-announced-for-the-24th-annual-webby-awards/ No awarding organization Yes No ✘ No
https://harvardindependent.com/2021/12/student-spotlights-avi-schiffman/ No Student spotlight at Harvard, where Avi attends ? No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I suspect there may be some level of churnalism involved here as well. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the source table above, it's much ado about nothing. I can't find anything else to support notability, it seems pretty clear to me. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100 Days Campaign

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

Publicity stunt with zero lasting effects. Not subject to any sustained or in-depth coverage. Anything within can be merged into Amnesty International or related articles already in existence. Veggies (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Papaya Global

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

Not meeting CORP. all sources are funding announcements or PR pieces. They are briefly mentioned in various articles such as [39], but they don't have significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references (including those in The haaretz.com, etc) are simply regurgitating information provided by the company and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. It would be helpful if the Keep !voters above identified specific paragraphs/sections within specific sources which they claim meet the criteria. HighKing++ 11:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep & move to Hassanati Halifa. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassatj Halifa

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could be soft deleted, not doing so per unanswered query.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, The sources are definel;y talking about the same person, since both have been captain of Comoros and are the same age, and when you search up this article name (Hassatj Halifa), there are no results, so this article should actually be moved to Hassanati Halifa. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which case keep and rename. GiantSnowman 06:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinaki Chaudhuri

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

This article does not meet any of the following standards of notability. Khorang 22:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is a claim of notability here: “ He was awarded with two National Awards for the Best Feature Film in Bengali, first one in 1996 for Shonghaath and again in 2007 for Ballygunge Court. Chowdhury was honoured as Jury Member in various Film Festivals and was the Chairman of the Jury Board for selection of Indian films for National Awards”. That’s unsourced but I don’t think we should delete unless a Bengali-speaker confirms a lack of sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (leaning) Not a language expert but this is what I found:
    • This appears to confirm the two national awards [48] (will add to article)
    • bn.wikipedia has an article but little information and no refs, I expected more. Articles exist elsewhere, but I don't think they will have sources.
    • They have a lot of obits. All the normal issues with Obits, but the number combined with the above awards makes a case more is out there.
    • I searched পিনাকী চৌধুরী and found enough on the first couple pages to make me believe there is more out there.
    If a language expert articulates how my assessment is off, I'd probably yield to their opinion.  // Timothy :: talk  02:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 00:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rishab Jain

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

Though relatively accomplished for a high school student, I believe this article does not pass the notability test for people. Much of the sources do seem self-cited as noted in the talk page, and many IP edits originate from or near Portland, Oregon so it is likely it's written by someone close to this individual. The awards mentioned here are not "well-known and significant" enough to warrant the creation of a page. I believe this article fails WP:GNG guidelines. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I previously supported a Draftify action, I now oppose deletion. I have rehauled this page completely, removing primary sources and adding the subject's recent, note-worthy accomplishments. There was a significant amount of sockpuppetry as well as what appear to be advertisements that were included on this page. Un-notable references to the subject's "Discord" and "YouTube" were non-notable.
I have added more recent, notable achievements. These include a feature by the National Cancer Institute, winning the International Science and Engineering Fair, being named a TIME Magazine 25 Most Influential Teen, and more. The subject meets notability.
As per WP:GNG, notability guidelines are failed for pages that do not have "significant coverage." I would agree if the subject had no media appearance since the page was initially created in 2018. However, it seems since 2021 onwards, the subject has been featured in media quite frequently, by reputed sources like TIME Magazine, Teen Vogue, Insider, Yahoo News, uspto.gov, The Hindu, NPR's Science Friday, PBS, etc. Another common issue is with sources and independent of the subject works. I have removed the primary sources and added more objective secondary sources that establish notability. There were also some press releases that were used as references — again, that tied into what seemed to be an advertising/promotional tone. These have been removed and replaced with reputed sources. CraigSut (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just based on a quick search in the news using the 'find sources' feature above, the subject Rishab Jain seems to have been featured in/by the National Cancer Institute [49], Good News Network [50], The Times [51], PhysicsWorld [52][53], Pancreatic Cancer Action Network [54], Pioneer Press [55], TIME's Most Influential Teens List [56], Deccan Chronicle [57], USPTO [58], Indian Express [59], Business Insider [60], TIME Magazine [61], NPR's Science Friday [62], American Kahani [63], The Oregonian [64], PBS [65], Pamplin Media [66].
These are just some of the first ones that popped up. There seem to be plenty more. Not all of these are solid sources, obviously, and so only the secondary, credible ones should be included in the page. Take a look at PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and the Insider ones above. I think the page could use some work, but the subject is clearly notable. It's a keep. Side-note: It looks like you're also trying to delete Avi Schiffmann, another notable young person. Little bit confused how some of the most famous activists of Gen Z don't quality for notability. Gitanjali Rao (scientist) is even more notable, pretty much included in every media publication possible, having received numerous humanitarian, United Nations, etc. awards. Deleting on the basis of the 3M Young Scientist Challenge makes no sense here or there. CraigSut (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although when searching for his name you may find his YouTube channel regarding Discord content, he has become notable in multiple different occasions (see article). ImperialMajority (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems quite outdated, and there have been numerous primary sources and non-encyclopedic terminology added. It's clearly in need of an overhaul. I believe that the IP edits originated from Portland, Oregon, may not be an issue, however. I myself am from Portland, Oregon, yet have no connection to the subject — rather, I heard about their work from a local congresswoman, and decided to cover some of their news on this page about a year ago. With respect to the awards issue — I believe that Rishab Jain's 'TIME Magazine's 25 Most Influential Teens' is a well-known award. I did a quick check and it seems like almost all of the people on that list meet notability criteria. Furthermore, the 'Regeneron Young Scientist Award' and 'America's Top Young Scientist' award seem quite significant (see Jack Andraka and Gitanjali Rao). As per WP:GNG there seems to be significant coverage. In the past, I have noticed some articles failing WP:GNG due to most sources being primary in nature, as well as dependent on the subject (i.e. advertising, press releases, etc.). I think the page does pass notability, however, needs significant edits to remove the promotional tone, excessive primary sources, and to be quite frank, an 'ugly' page, that does not read cohesively. I recommend Draftify or a significant rewrite from an experienced/the original editor.

I have just taken a look at all the sources on the page, as well as some new sources online. It seems like the subject was recognized by the NIH and/or National Cancer Institute. This meets notability guidelines. Based on this additional info, I am in favor of Draftify and will begin a rewrite myself. If another editor wishes to draft this article, I would recommend them doing so. —CraigSut (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor changed their !vote in a separate comment locate further up the page dated after this one. —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi CraigSut! Thank you for your thoughtful response and efforts to rewrite.
In regards to the IP, one of the edits came from an IP address in Beaverton where the individual is from. I haven't looked too deep into this. You mention that a local congresswoman mentioned this individual's work which prompted your involvement, but there's a lot here that doesn't necessarily merit the creation of a page. For Gitanjali Rao (scientist) (see Talk:Gitanjali Rao (scientist)) and Jack Andraka (less so), the awards in question are not as significant as you might think. They may be relatively significant for younger audiences, perhaps, but the recipients of the 3M Young Scientist award are students in grades 5 through 8. With no disrespect towards their work, the work done by a student at age 14 will most likely not make an impact in the field the world was done in, if at all recognized. I cannot find any mention of "PCDLS Net" in scientific journals or reviews. If we consider the 3M Young Scientist notable, every 11-14 year old who wins could have their own Wikipedia page containing their aspirations of going to some prestigious higher education institution. In regards to the TIME's list, it could be considered somewhat significant on its own, but the notability of the work that warranted the award seems rather weak.
There is also the Coca-Cola Scholars award now listed on the page, which on its own is not notable. In the selection process, much of it is done on an algorithmic basis where you must have some amount of volunteering and some academic threshold. Research Science Institute is a summer program for high school students to conduct research at MIT, this doesn't warrant a page either as countless students go through the program. Much of the research made in that program also does not leave a mark in their respective fields either. There is also a mention of a TEDxGateway event that Rishab spoke at. TEDx speakers can be anyone, so this also not convey any significance or notability.
The recognition by the National Cancer Institute is a quick spotlight mention on one of their news/press releases. This spotlight also again brings up the 3M Young Scientist award. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Qx.est (Suufi)!
Based on the page itself, the individual is from Portland — not the same as Beaverton. Nonetheless, this is not really important as I'm sure numerous individuals in the community/town could have made edits to the page, as I am. I just looked through the edits, and there have been vandalism edits from Portland IPs as well.
You point out the 3M Young Scientist Award work as not being notable, with your main argument being that: then every 11-14 year old "who wins would have their own page." I don't think this is the case. The only past winners from this program who have their page are Rishab Jain, Gitanjali Rao (scientist), and Deepika Kurup. The program has been going on for what seems like 16 years. The very fact that the others did not have pages created indicates that the award by itself is not enough for notability. As such, only the most notable alumni (like Rishab Jain, Gitanjali Rao, and Deepika Kurup) have had Wikipedia pages written about them. Gitanjali Rao (scientist) had the 3M award along with a major recognition as TIME's Kid of the Year. Deepika Kurup had the 3M award alongside being named Forbes 30 Under 30. Rishab Jain has had the 3M award along with a major recognition on the TIME Magazine list, Regeneron Young Scientist Award, featured by the National Cancer Institute, etc.
As Wikipedians, it is a little presumptuous for you to assume that the TIME list is only 'somewhat significant' and the work is not notable. After all, TIME is one of the most reputed news magazines that we could possible include as a source on Wikipedia. There are also news articles about the subject in Teen Vogue, Insider, NPR's Science Friday, The Hindu, Times of India, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and more. There are mentions in Forbes, The Times, PBS, etc. -- however, we must consider that there are actual articles solely written about the subject's work. Your other evidence behind this is that the subject is not making an impact on the field yet. By that logic, pretty much every youth inventor (Gitanjali Rao (scientist), Jack Andraka, Shree Bose, and countless others) would have to have their pages deleted? Further, Jain actually does seem to have some work in review (see [67]) which the other youth inventors do not. Jain seems to have the 3M Award, TIME Magazine Award, some reviews in Nature Scientific Data etc. etc. along with the Regeneron Young Scientist Award in the International Science and Engineering Fair, inclusion in The Times as well as Insider's lists, and further recognition. Even if we exclude all of the older TIME Magazine, Business Insider, Yahoo News, etc. mentions, the subject does still meet notability for the more recent awards. The recent Regeneron Young Scientist Award is very similar in class to the one for Jack Andraka. There is also an induction into the National Museum of Education's National Gallery for America's Young Inventors. Even by News [68] and Scholar [] there are several mentions to the subject (several within the last year).
Furthermore, it is not our ability as Wikipedians, and yourself as a student (as per talk page), to adjudicate whether or not a subject's work/accomplishments are not going to have an impact on science. Unless an editor here on Wikipedia is an established scientist/researcher in the field, and can provide critique, it does not make sense for us to argue on whether or not this subject's work is going to do anything. Instead, the only thing we can do, is look at secondary sources. Jain's work was literally featured by TIME Magazine and the National Cancer Institute. It was also recognized by the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and interviewed by Allison Rosenzweig, PhD, who writes frequently about pancreatic cancer. This is already far more coverage than is needed to establish notability. Although a less reliable source, the challenge has had their own PhD scientists review Jain's work. His other cancer work seems to have been published in Frontiers in Oncology, Nature Scientific Data, and the International Journal of Radiology. He was also invited as a course teacher, where he spoke about his 'PCDLS Net' work at the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology — one of the world's leading conferences in this area. Jain has plenty of backing on his work in the media — we can safely assume the subject achieves notability this way. Some of the above is not included in the page. As such, the page does need to be revised. However, deletion is completely unnecessary. We just need to add more sources and more information, while maintaining a non-biased tone.
The Coca-Cola Scholars and Research Science Institute are clearly listed in the personal life section of the page. I agree with you that these are not notable on their own. I am not claiming that Jain deserves notability for these awards, and you debunking notability for these does not prove anything. These awards are only mentioned in the personal life category for a reason. Many notable figures have went to the Research Science Institute, and so it makes perfect sense to include this in the personal life section as it is clearly a central experience for these scientists.
I remain with an oppose-ing viewpoint on this matter. I would like to mention that I have already spent a significant amount of time rehauling this page and would appreciate others editing it further.
I am happy to edit the page a little more to add more of these details and backing, however, it would be great if you/other editors could suggest/contribute some revisions as well :) CraigSut (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the response. A quick Google search of the keywords "Rishab Jain" and "Beaverton" yield a result showing that the individual is indeed from Beaverton, Oregon. I do recognize that there are some vandalism edits from these IPs, likely from someone who knows Jain. Some other edits by IPs from the same geographic region are done in good-faith.
The articles you mention are an example of WP:WAX. Anyone can write an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't necessarily mean the article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, Gitanjali Rao (scientist) also has the same notice this article had in regards to sources. This isn't marked on Deepika Kurup, but the Personal Life section indicates self-promotion/conflict of interest and bears the same issues as the other articles. Same goes for Jack Andraka (see Talk Page). These three articles can be proposed for deletion under the same points made under these one. These aren't very popular articles (relatively speaking) on Wikipedia, so they've been overlooked for some time. My argument is not to discredit these young inventors. They are accomplished for their age, but they are not notable enough now to have a Wikipedia page focused on their work which isn't considered significant in realm of academia.
The reason I mentioned TIME as "somewhat significant" is because the TIME article that seems to have resulted in Jain's listing refers to his 3M award, not his work. In regards to the work Jain is doing now, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Specifically, "having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." The Museum entry is an interesting one, but the induction into the museum involves submitting an application of your work and being voted on by fellow high school students. The entire museum is dedicated to young students in grades K-12.
The link of the Google search you have provided lists 10 results, 8 of which refer to his 3M award in 2018. My argument is not that his work will not make an impact on science, but that rather, as of right now, has not made an impact in the field. We cannot create articles on the future/potential notability of an individual. The featuring of Jain on National Cancer Institute also references the 2018 3M award. The backing of Jain in media primarily revolves around Jain's awards, not his work which is the issue at hand here.
Going back to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), criteria 2 mentions that

Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.

<meta />
Jain is currently tagged with Category:American medical researchers and Category:Scientists from Portland, Oregon and based on the above, he does not bear academic notability either so that point cannot be made either.
I do want to thank you for your extensive work on this page. Your work is not unrecognized, and it is appreciated. However, respectfully, I would like to point out that this article has been your only source of contributions on Wikipedia, so I would understand the reluctancy of having your work deleted. Jain does have a lot of potential, but as of right now, I do not believe his accomplishments at this time warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page hence why I am still in favor of delete. If Jain does reach a level of notability in the future, this page can be reintroduced, but as of right now, I don't think what we have here is enough. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've only shown that Jain does not meet Notability for academics and completely dodge the extensive sourcing that I provided, focusing solely on the 3M Award. You're also showing initiative to delete Gitanjali Rao (scientist) who is a very notable figure. I'd like to defer to the community on this to see what people think — if these Gen Z changemakers are indeed notable. CraigSut (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Gen Z subjects in question are actually quote a good argument for inclusionism. I'm keen to see how this plays out. CraigSut (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to respond to the great point you brought up about categories. Jain is definitely not notable for academics, and so feel free to remove the categories of American researcher and scientists, etc.
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people): he still meets the general Notability criteria for people, and so it's a keep for me.
-----
Context from the notability criteria:
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." — hence the multiple independent sources utilized in the context.
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." CraigSut (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry about that. I did not see the sourcings you provided as these were introduced via edit after I had replied. The multiple "secondary" sources you seem to describe largely consist of quotes from Jain with little to no analysis from the authors. Secondary sources should contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" as per WP:SECONDARY. The articles you have sent above seem to mostly lack the synthesis/analysis aspect needed in secondary sources. This seems to largely be the issue with the sources.
It's a bit late for me where I am right now, but here's a quick list of issues I found with having these as sources:
<meta />
  • National Cancer Institute [1], just largely mentioning of facts, no analysis
  • Good News Network [2], no analysis or interpretation by the author, primarily quotes Jain and describes the award.
  • The Times [3], 3 sentence long reference, only 1 of which briefly mentions his work.
  • PhysicsWorld [4][5], podcast interview with Jain (primary) and mostly quotes from Jain
  • Pancreatic Cancer Action Network [6], largely quotes from Jain, no analysis
  • Pioneer Press [7], possibly secondary? but very little content here
  • TIME's Most Influential Teens List [8], not much content here other than a listing for the award and a brief discussion of Jain's work
  • Deccan Chronicle [9], two sentences on Jain, no analysis
  • USPTO [10], could possibly argue secondary, but this seems like a biography about the speaker for the event (which tends to involve input from the individual)
  • Indian Express [11], brief listing of Jain and his work, just lists the facts known about Jain
  • Business Insider [12], a short video documentary of Jain (primary)
  • TIME Magazine [13], mostly quotes and indirect quotes from Jain, no analysis
  • NPR's Science Friday [14], largely a video presentation from Jain, very little content
  • American Kahani [15], mentioning of facts (who Jain is and winning ISEF), no analysis/synthesis
  • The Oregonian [16], largely direct and indirect quotes about Jain, little to no analysis/synthesis
  • PBS [17], listing of Jain largely consisting of direct quotes
  • Pamplin Media [18], largely just mentioning facts about Jain and his work with some quotes from him and his parent
I hope this helps to explain where I am coming from. I do believe it's best for the community to decide on these articles, and I appreciate your thoughtful responses. It is true I am showing initiative to delete some other articles, but this is not because of their status as members of generation Z or their activism. There are articles on Wikipedia of generation Z activists that are perfectly fine given that they adhere to WP:GNG. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a conceptual issue here in what you believe are primary/secondary sources.
You state that PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and many more are just "mostly quotes" and thereby secondary sources yet very conveniently ignore MULTIPLE analytic/contextualizing paragraphs, i.e.:
  • An inherent challenge of radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer is accurately targeting the pancreas, which is often obscured by the stomach or other nearby organs, making it difficult to locate. In addition, breathing and other anatomical changes may cause the pancreas to move around in the abdominal area. As a result, radiotherapy can inadvertently target healthy tissue.
  • Doing so can be difficult, since the pancreas is often obscured by other organs, and since breathing and other bodily processes can cause it to move around the abdominal area. As a result, doctors sometimes need to deploy radiation treatment with an “error circle” that ensures they’ll hit the pancreas, but that may kill some healthy cells as collateral damage.
Just because an article includes quotes does not make it primary! As per WP:SECONDARY, secondary sources "...rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." I think the table on Woodbury.edu [69] does a good job of illustrating this.
"News article quoting excerpts from the interview" are considered secondary sources
This is precisely what the TIME list, etc. are doing. They rely on primary source interviews with the subject, and interpret this information in context. The main "issue" (which is not actually an issue) you have with most of these sources is that they include quotes from the subject. That doesn't disqualify them from being a secondary source... primary sources will typically be the interviews themselves. Secondary sources may include some quotes, which is what many of the sources you cite above do.
  • The U.S. has some of the highest prescription drug prices in the world, which can push patients into bankruptcy over medications they cannot afford. More than three in four American adults think the prices of prescription drugs are unaffordable, prompting the Senate to recently pass a bill intended to help lower prescription drug costs for seniors. One young innovator set out to find his own solution. 17 year-old Rishab Jain developed ICOR, a tool to improve the rapid production of drugs like COVID-19 vaccines.
Another excerpt from a source:
  • What makes Rishab’s algorithm so important is that pancreas are difficult to spot as they move around. Currently doctors target radiation in the area they believe pancreas are, in the process also killing other healthy cells. Pancreatic cancer is the 13th most common cancer worldwide, according to a Lancet study from October 2015. With an unusually high mortality rate, it is the eight most common cause of death from cancer. Over a quarter million people worldwide have lost their lives to it. What makes pancreatic cancer so deadly is the lack of symptoms during early stages when it is most treatable, reports CNN. Experts say, there are no screening tools specific to this kind of cancer. As a result, in many cases, the discovery of the disease gets delayed. The detection is often confined to distinct symptoms like abdominal pain and jaundice. Dr Shubham Pant, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at Houston, Texas, explains the disease in the video below.
Take for instance, this source about Jain (RadiologyToday Magazine). This source is by Pamela Q. Fernandes, MD, is a doctor, author, and medical writer who specializes in new breakthroughs in medicine.
  • Machine Learning: Fresh Perspective \ By Pamela Q. Fernandes, MD \ Radiology Today \ Vol. 20 No. 7 P. 8
  • A major concern when it comes to AI in the medical field is replicability. Jain believes the best way to address that concern is to share the research.
  • Although AI does show much promise, there are challenges in creating a tool like his.
Are these not contextualizing statements? Do these not provide some level of analysis? This is clearly not a primary source. These secondary sources should be added to the article, which I can do, but the issue about notability is clear — there are secondary sources that exist about Jain. Your interpretation of what a secondary source is muddled. If each source is doing 'a little analysis' that adds up to quite a bit of analysis about Jain.
There are quite frankly so many secondary sources, that I am finding it a bit unbelievable that you are trying to pin it on this point. Let's keep in mind that Jain also qualifies for notability through the honor criteria on WP:GNG for people. CraigSut (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is a conceptual issue of what I believe to be primary/secondary sources. I am following the guidelines listed on Wikipedia and precedence you can find it other articles flagged for deletion.
In much of these cases, these are entirely interviews, not excerpts of the interview interwoven with the author's thoughts. From Wikipedia:Interviews, "[t]he general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material." You argue that secondary sources may include some quotes, and that is true. But the keyword is some, and these sources are largely indirect and direct quotes of Jain.
In many of these articles, that is the case. I did not say the articles are primary simply because they quote Jain, but because they do not offer enough analysis by the author to be considered secondary. For example, the journal article by Dr. Pamela Fernandes is pretty much an interview with Jain. Every paragraph starts with some sentence or question that segues into Jain's own words. There is no synthesis here. The quote that you provided contextualized looks like this:

A major concern when it comes to AI in the medical field is replicability. Jain believes the best way to address that concern is to share the research. “I can write a research paper, display how the architecture works—how it takes an input and the various layers I used in between—and how I fine-tuned it,” he says. “AI is having a huge boom in medicine, but there’s not a lot of documentation and research right now. More research papers would be helpful for those replicating and improving the results.” [...] Although AI does show much promise, there are challenges in creating a tool like his. “It does take a lot of time, resources, and effort,” Jain says. “After three years of research, I’ve come this far. I’ve created a five-year plan to continue working on the clinical technology and bring it to application in a clinical study but, in the end, it will take a decade to perfect it and bring this technology to the market. A lot of these problems require research, and that takes a lot of time and resources. It’s frightening for those who want to conduct new research. Everything comes with such a cost and possible implications.”

The synthesis is not done by the author, it is done by Jain. These sources are not intellectually independent of the source.
That one sentence at the start could be considered secondary, yes, but in the context of the entire piece, the source is not a secondary article and the line likely isn't either. Some possible questions Fernandes could've asked during this interview are "what do you think the biggest concern is to AI in the medical field?" or "what are challenges in making a tool like this?" After all, this is an interview and these are very typical questions. If Fernandes did contextualize what the issues to AI in medicine were in her own words and thoughts, that would be secondary. I unfortunately do not see any interpretation done here. In regards to your other quotes, they could be said to be secondary, but to a large extent, these sources lack Wikipedia:Notability (events). If anything, these are descriptions of facts about pancreatic cancer, not the role Jain's work plays in combatting pancreatic cancer. Again, that explanation comes from Jain in following paragraphs.
These articles mostly coincide with the occurrence of the event where Jain won the award, they are too close to the individual and the award so their independence on the matter is questionable. As per Wikipedia:Primary sources, "[p]rimary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Furthemore, "The TIME magazine article is one of the articles that occur right after Jain won the award. From what I have seen, there is little to no depth in the reporting of how Jain's work affects the field by any of the authors I have seen.
The ICOR excerpt comes from an interview with Jain and does not describe Jain's connection to the work, just simply that he has developed a tool to combat skyrocketing prices. The only possible secondary source I see is fourth quote you have provided which comes from [70]. However, at the very bottom of this article, it says that the "[t]his story was auto-published from a syndicated feed. No part of the story has been edited by The Quint." This falls under non-independent sources in Wikipedia:SYNDICATED.
I have refreshed the page as I wrote this and I will now address your second comment. It is unfair to compare this article to that of athletes. We cannot compare apples to oranges. Athletes tend to follow Wikipedia:NSPORTS, and Jain is not an athlete. Jain is very accomplished young man, but Jain's status a "young scientist" is not enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia article as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Additionally, please take another look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Having an honor alone does confer notablility and not having one doesn't make you not notable. Additionally, the academic awards (3M and ISEF, in particular) won by Jain aren't considered notable or significant as per my previous statement.
I again do believe this is best left for other Wikipedians to decide. I believe I have made my point extensively here, and my goal is not to persuade you. You do have a vested interest in keeping the article you have worked extensively on, and that is perfectly understand. I am looking to solely state the facts as to why I do not believe Jain's article meets Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). This AfD article has gotten very long and major apologies to anyone who stumbles here. If you would like to continue this debate, the Talk Page might be the best place. Thank you. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position and the arguments you have made, however, my position is still a keep — I think this article should not be deleted.
In my view, a lot of the sources are indeed synthesizing and analyzing. Comparisons to existing research and other figures are essentially synthesis and analysis. Your definition of a secondary source is clearly different than what most people view it as.
You continue to intentionally make hasty generalizations so I don't see any point in continuing to argue here. After this comment, I will not engage on this page anymore unless other Wikipedians contribute. You intentionally ignore the TIME 25 Most Influential list, National Cancer Institute feature, being added to the National Museum of Education's gallery, Insider List, Giuseppe Sciacca International Award, and much much more, and instead default to the (3m) "America's Top Young Scientist" and (ISEF) "Regeneron Young Scientist" awards, since you can attack those easily as being simple academic awards. Just because two awards Jain has received do not give notability by themselves, it does not automatically disprove the others???
The continued, intentional generalizations you make on this page (and at Avi Schiffmann makes me think that you have some external motive/bias here. It is interesting that your deletion flag also was created DURING the timeframe of extensive vandalism attacks on the article. I see that this is the same date that Jain posted a YouTube video about Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (Redacted). It is interesting that you also then proposed/encouraged deletion for Gitanjali Rao, another Gen Z activist who is a researcher at MIT. Since Rao and Jain will be students at MIT, I see a clear COI here.
I agree that The Quint article is syndicated, however, I am unable to find the original source of the article. It is possible that The Quint accidentally labeled its article as auto-syndicated, as:
  • Dr Shubham Pant, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at Houston, Texas, explains the disease in the video below.
This type of external analysis/context that The Quint provides is not seen elsewhere online (at least indexed by Google) which leads me to think that the article was labeled as syndicated, when it may not have actually been.
You also go in-depth to label Fernandes as a primary source. Even if it is, there are still PLENTY of secondary sources. See what I wrote in my previous response:
  • "You state that PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and many more are just "mostly quotes" and thereby secondary sources yet very conveniently ignore MULTIPLE analytic/contextualizing paragraphs"
You are doing this once again. I don't see any point of debating with someone who clearly wishes to strawman this argument to discredit others' positions. Instead of going extensively to disprove this article, we could have instead improved the article & added more secondary sources.
Even for sports/athletes, you still need secondary sources. Yes, there are different notability criteria, but my point about secondary sourcing still stands. The majority of the articles we see do not have any secondary sources by your logic, and therefore none should exist on Wikipedia. This would result in a huge number of articles being deleted.
In my eyes, this is a clear meta issue of inclusion.
My extensive defense of this page should warrant at least a community discussion as I believe this (and Gitanjali Rao & Avi Schiffmann, two others that you wish to have deleted) are important articles for Gen Z activism. Even on Avi Schiffmann's page, you completely ignore the sources that have pages and pages of independent analysis and synthesis, so it's clear you are intent on deletion even after additional evidence has been brought up. For example, you labelled these multiple CNN articles not conveying notability as well??? [71] [72]
If NONE of these articles for Schiffmann, and now Jain, convey notability in your eyes, I am at a loss of words for what does? If these articles are primary sources then every article that is not a critique or review of a person will be primary, in your eyes. It is a definition debate here: what is primary and what is secondary? As per the Woodbury.edu page I gave above, along with Wikipedia's own tables, many of Jain's sources do indeed qualify as secondary sources.
keep. I'll keep any future discussions on this article's talk page, or the main article's talk page. If any other Wikipedians want to weigh in, it would be much appreciated as well. CraigSut (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we look at any article, i.e. Orlando Brown Jr., you will see that nearly all of the 'secondary sources' utilized are majority quotes: [73]. By your logic, nearly every source on nearly NFL player's Wikipedia page is not a secondary source, because it is quotes?
I find it interesting that we are debating on the notability of someone who has been interviewed and written about extensively and is far more notable than hundreds of current and historical NFL players. Wikipedia already lacks pages about scientists, especially those of color and in minority groups (which youth/young scientists are a part of!)
This page is also a matter of meta:Inclusionism. The article is factual and retains merit and usefulness. With my recent improvements, I think it deserves a keep.
Furthermore, the iterative nature of Wikipedia will help us add more secondary sources, solving your concerns. I will take a look at this once more tomorrow, and add additional secondary sources that contain significant analysis and synthesis. CraigSut (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have pretty much finished rehauling this page -- no longer in favor of Draftify. I have removed all primary sources from the page, including references to the subject's LinkedIn and Twitter. This page seems to receive occasional low-quality edits, in which such primary sources keep getting added. I first removed any of these primary sources, then attempted to find additional sourcing for the information. If no sources were available, the edits were removed. With the subject's more recent recognition, such as the international awards and feature by the National Cancer Institute, I think it is clear that they meet notability guidelines. The page also previously had issues with promotional content, and biased points of views. I have attempted to bring in neutral language and an encyclopedic tone. I now OPPOSE the deletion as the page and subject meet WP:GNG guidelines. —CraigSut (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON as he does not yet pass WP:NPROF. He has an impressive GS citation profile for his age, but not something that is currently sufficient to pass NPROF. --hroest 17:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep
    Kindly retain this page as it contains erroneous allegations about a deserving researcher. I reside in Portland where the Rishab is well known researcher in the community, and it wouldn't be astonishing if the town's residents contribute to his cause. Rishab's achievements have been corroborated by independent third parties, while on the other hand, there have been several instances in the past where jealous parents and negative elements in society have questioned his integrity. Nevertheless, every time, his accomplishments have been verified by independent third parties. Rishab has inspired so many kids younger and older to get excited about science and research. 134.134.139.78 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to inquire about the individuals who are requesting deletion. Are they from Portland or are they possibly relatives of students who may be envious of Rishab's success and are now attempting to undermine it?
    Every year Rishab is delivering new research results to the world. Let us support this deserving researcher to continue on his mission! 134.134.139.78 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure of what errgenous allegations are being made here. In your argument, you are suggesting we retain this page about a "deserving researcher", but the matter of fact is that this article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as mentioned by hroest. This point is also supported by CraigSut who has contributed heavily to this article. Being a well-known research within a community isn't enough to meet the guidelines listed there, and the achievements you're mentioning are explicitly said to not count towards meeting those guidelines. While it is unfortunate that his accomplishments and integrity have been questioned by jealous parents and negative elements in society, it doesn't change the issue at hand here. In regards to your inquiry, I am neither from Portland nor related to Rishab Jain in any way. I am not a relative of any student who knows Rishab as far as I know. But, I do need to point out that Wikipedia article are not meant to "support" researchers on their mission. You seem to be hinting towards what may be a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that in my discussion with Qx.est, we agree that the subject should not be classified as an academic. His notability should be weighed under general Notability guidelines. CraigSut (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rishab Jain, a proven child prodigy researcher, visited Dublin a few years ago. I attended his lecture, and since then, I occasionally track his and other researcher pages, particularly after the passing of my family member with pancreatic cancer. Jain's sources are credible, and he has been working in research for 5 years, receiving recognition every year. He generates over 15K-20K hits on search engines, and his latest paper publications on Sarcopenia and Recombinant vaccination are published in academic journals. His Time magazine, Planet named after him,  attests to his recognition. Unfortunately, our media doesn't cover scientists with same vigor as other disciplines like sports or music or politics. But Jain got fame as researcher and deserves to keep it! We should encourage researchers to focus on research instead of getting famous in media. His page inspires so many youngsters.
    Jain deserves to be tracked on Wikipedia for his research, Discord work, and Youtube work. His biography seems to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Comments above about a request for deletion due to a Gen Z/ Qx.est show Conflict of interest for request to delete other student pages. I looked through their work and this seems to be the first page requested by them like this. Two years ago, Jain's page was vandalized with inappropriate comments from other students, which were stopped. Jains wikipage has been up for at least 4-5 years now. I disagree with the requestor's arguments and support keeping the page. Oliver1981161 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) — Oliver1981161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Hi Oliver! I'm sorry to hear about your family member's passing. This was mentioned earlier, but Rishab's work does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines. I cannot find evidence of the 15-20K search engine hits, and the recent publication you are mentioning does not have a significant enough citation rate as mentioned by criteria 1. The recognitions you are also mentioning have mostly, if not all, been "victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements" which also do not count towards criteria 2. These are the only two criteria which might be relevant for Jain's status as a researcher. Jain's Discord work and YouTube work do not appear to be substantial enough to have a page created as a Wikipedia:CREATIVE which deviates far from the sources about Rishab and his work. On a semantic note, I would like to point out is that an asteroid (considered a minor planet) was named after Rishab, not a major planet, because he was "a finalist in the 2019 Broadcom MASTERS, a math and science competition for middle-school students, for his medicine and health sciences project."[74] The WGSBN consistently names asteroids after finalists in Broadcom MASTERS and Regeneron Science Talent in nearly every bulletin, so I do not think this conveys notability on its own.
    Given the millions of pages on Wikipedia, the amount of time a page has been up does not indicate if it does or does not meet notability. It's very easy for anyone to create a Wikipedia article about anything. Additionally, my affiliation or not affiliation with generation Z does not present a conflict of interest with this article. That's not what Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 03:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

INSFOC

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

Another most likely non-existant Indonesia navy special force unit, cannot find any reference for this unit other than wikilike websites or blogs. Hence, fails WP:GNG Ckfasdf (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Yvon

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Lack of significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Eastwood

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: there is not enough WP:SIGCOV from sources I could find for the article to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my opinion and now believed the article should be kept. The initial search I did was relatively cursory, but a more thorough search found sources with WP:SIGCOV that have been helpfully added to the article by Moonraker. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Anatolia. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 02:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey in Asia

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

Unnecessary DAB that burdens readers more than anything else. A Google search of "Turkey in Asia" mostly yields results pertaining to the geography of Turkey, and it seems most likely that anyone searching this expects to end up there or at Anatolian Peninsula (to which "Asian Turkey" redirects). An anonymous username, not my real name 01:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements on the A38

Settlements on the A38 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTSTATS. Links to notable towns can be handled in A38 road. Rschen7754 01:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would User:Rschen7754 or anyone with knowledge of this policy please explain how WP:NOTSTATS relates specifically to the article under discussion here? — It would be of great help in forming my opinion. Rupples (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It provides a list of the cities that A38 runs through, without any explanation. There is no reason why this information can't be included in the actual article (in some sort of narrative) - plus, there are a lot longer roads that don't have separate cities lists. --Rschen7754 23:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to A38 road. In its present state I see this article as a navigational aid to places linked by the A38. It provides a structured at-a-glance style for readers not wishing to search through the narrative text to ascertain whether or not a place is on the A38. As an alternative to deletion, I suggest the article content is merged to A38 road in the form of a collapsible navigational template box. Granted, there would be some duplication with the primary destinations section of the A38 infobox but I feel this negative is overridden by a potential loss in readership of the articles on the smaller villages and towns listed from there being one less wikilink to them should the article be deleted. Rupples (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! Noise! 03:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of settlements with a Fore Street

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

This is trivia, we don't even have an article on Fore Street. Rschen7754 01:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rschen7754 01:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. We do not need a list of every town that has a street of a certain name. Dough4872 01:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This falls afoul of WP:NOT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. –Fredddie™ 01:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate trivia. The whole concept of a Fore Street itself isn't even notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted at High Street#Incidence (and Fore Street should be retargetted to that section) the most common name for the principal shopping street in towns and villages in Great Britain varies regionally, and knowing this context I understand the intent behind this list is not indiscriminate but rather illustrating this regional trend. I would not be at all surprised if there was an encyclopaedic list to be found related to this (documenting and/or illustrating the distribution of settlements where the main shopping street is High Street, High Road, Fore Street, Main Street, Front Street, etc. but this list is not it. The list as it currently exists does appear to be indiscriminate though, for example Fore Street, Eastcote is a residential road not a shopping street (the nearby High Road has a few shops, but the main shopping street is now(?) elsewhere in the settlement) and the City of London road is presently a very minor street on the edge of the Barbican estate (it's not impossible it was a shopping street before WWII but I've not looked). This latter point is tips me into delete as it means it would be of limited use as a starting point for an encyclopaedic list (especially as I'm not sure what form such a list would take). Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! Noise! 03:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 2011 Arafura Games

Boxing at the 2011 Arafura Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Boucher (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. Also a failed political candidate. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Clelland Britton

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! Noise! 02:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 02:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blacknut

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

Non-notable business, sourced only to Linked In. Only items I find are PR pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Subject of BLP agrees to deletion, no keep !votes. J04n(talk page) 22:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Jackson

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

Promo, not meeting GNG. Undergraduates are not notable unless they have extensive coverage in media. Having your work "recognized" does not mean winning an award. I find no mentions of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As Faye Jackson herself, I also recommend deletion :)
I didn't create the article myself. Although a non-academic friend of mine did on a whim after seeing that previous winners of the Schafer prize had a page. After reading the notability requirements it definitely doesn't fit! Alittledelta (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oon Yung

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


Fails WP:BIO. The only source provided is a dead link. Could not find any significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is worthwhile to search for his name in Korean script, 온영. I don't read Korean. My initial search for the Korean name didn't find any hits for the diplomat, but several for "World on Yonge", a condominium complex in Canada that sounds like his name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is right to delete this article because there is not enough reference or explanation. CHO woohyuck (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netball at the 2001 Arafura Games

Netball at the 2001 Arafura Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Netball at the 2007 Arafura Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Netball at the 2019 Arafura Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duffie Stone

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

Soilicitors are equivalent of locally elected district attorney. Per WP:POLITICIAN, locally elected officials are not inherently notable. Searching for this person and excluding the Murdaugh name, which this person is attached to, returns no significant coverage. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_15&oldid=1144751289"