Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 22

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sparkl (talk | contribs) at 01:19, 22 December 2023 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bezel Engine.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 21 December 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bezel Engine

Bezel Engine (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 video game engine does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Most of the sources I could find were primary sources from Nintendo, blogs, or press releases. A quick search through Japanese sources provided nothing of use. Sparkltalk 01:19, 22 December 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article but improvements, as suggested in this discussion, still need to be made. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Stretton

Pamela Stretton (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:ARTIST. Most sources are from http://www.rosekorberart.com/ which appears to be a primary source. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I recovered the dead links to the citations and added more details. Although it looked like all the sources were from a gallery website, they were actually reviews of her work from other publications; the content of the reviews was reposted on the gallery website. Thus, there are ample examples of significant coverage. Included is a review in The Sunday Independent, the magazines Contempo and Art South Africa, and a review in Monday Paper. I also added missing citations and looked into the awards listed in the Infobox. She was a finalist for the Absa L'Atelier Art Competition three times and was selected for the Spier Contemporary Competition and Exhibition which appears to be a big deal in the South African art scene. Rublamb (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the work put in by Rublamb. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per comments by Rublamb to meet WP:NARTIST. WP:DINC, even if most sources at the time the article was nominated were primary. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article relies mainly on primary sources for biographical and exhibition/collection information. I am not finding reliable sourcing for the information presented. The entire content about Stretton at the VISI citation is The series by Pamela Stretton, who was born in South Africa and now lives in the U.K., focuses on the female body, and is to a large extent autobiographical. This press release was cited multiple times. Fails WP:ARTIST. Not part of any significant exhibitions or collections, and does not have significant RS coverage. WP:TOOSOON --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Looks like you missed part of the VISI article. The full content to consider is: "Featuring three extraordinary artists – Lyndi Sales, Pamela Stretton and Eris Silke – the exhibition showcases a collection of artworks from colourful abstract creations to images built up from pixilated digital ink-jet prints and sensitive paintings of dreams and fantasy. ...The series by Pamela Stretton, who was born in South Africa and now lives in the U.K., focuses on the female body, and is to a large extent autobiographical. Issues such as beauty ideals and the body’s relationship with popular culture, fashion, health and food come to the fore in her works, which take the form of pixilated digital inkjet prints. Each 20 x 20mm pixel contains iconography drawn from the food, fashion, consumerism and health and fitness industries, such that the viewer is forced to stand at a distance in order to make the image visually resolve." This could be used to replace primary sources in the article. Also, it is allowable to use primary sources—they just don't apply toward notability. The key here is that there are potential secondary sources that can be used to expand the article. The review in The Sunday Independent proves notablity and is not yet used. Rublamb (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To reinforce the point about primary sources, note WP:PRIMARY#3 and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It looks like Rublamb missed the point that the VISI article is a press release put out by the gallery. No byline, and the bottom states Catch this showcase of the power of women in art at Cape Town’s Barnard Gallery until 13 April. For more info on the exhibition or artists, visit www.barnardgallery.com.. I understand primary sources can be used for some facts, but I do not think they can be used to establish notability. Nor can native advertising. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. I hadn't noticed that was a press release (normally I'd expect to see press releases published in multiple locations), so I'm changing my !vote to a weaker keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As someone who used to write press releases and do PR for a living, reporters often end an article that way,, especially when writing about exhibitions and shows. I never assume something is a press release unless I see the same content in several places. But let's assume @WomenArtistUpdates is correct and remove VISI from the list of articles toward notability. These sources remain: The Sunday Independent, the magazines Contempo and Art South Africa, and a review in Monday Paper. Rublamb (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the remaining "sources", there is the Monday Paper - the newspaper for University of Cape Town , and Art South Africa, which I can find no reference of existence. Are you familiar with that publication or has her gallery presented a typo in the title? Again, not much help in establishing notability. Contempo Magazine is a pretty weak source as well. Whoops wrong magazine. No Idea about the South African publication. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what Art South Africa look like. A typical art journal that is significant/notable enough to be sold through the used book market. I have also added a link to a PDF of the Spier catalog.Rublamb (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A search found reliable sources that show notability, including the subject's participation in the 10-year Spier national art project, which Smithsonian Libraries noted was juried. I have added that to the subject's article. This clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:NARTIST. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying for one more relist before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Rose Korber Art". web.archive.org. 8 March 2011. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
  2. ^ "The Spier Art Collection". Spier Wine Farm. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus appears to be that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 03:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E.V.A. (band)

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

Unsourced and absolutely not notable. Fails WP:BAND. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The second two sources are press releases. Here is another source: [1]. It does not say much, though, and I wouldn't consider it significant coverage. If more sources come up, I will reconsider. Broc (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also coverage in Il Piccolo (p. 27, bottom left) and La Stampa (centre of the page). I also found it:Girodivite (link) but that doesn't seem reliable. toweli (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. clpo13(talk) 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Muneza

Christopher Muneza (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)
  • Delete as an obviously promotional article. would've been speedied as WP:G11 if it wasn't put up for AfD.

Pfomma (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to garner more opinions here. I might have suggested a PROD prior to trying AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you had looked at the page history, which is the least any AFD discussion participant should do, you would have seen that the article was tagged CSD G7 at least twice, both times declined. The reasons are in the edit summaries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 29 December 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. ✗plicit 01:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Shruti Settipalli

Lakshmi Shruti Settipalli (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)

Sources run of the mail facebook account, imdb, all and all poorly sourced. Sources are not secdondary or independent dont meet WPINDP or WP:SIRS Comintell (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 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, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 22 December 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. clpo13(talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxometrical society

Oxometrical society (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 University Society. Lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More links to further independent sources have now been added.
Is it enough to have the nomination for deletion now removed? Skullbound (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All you've done is bombarded it with more passing mentions, So no, not enough. And it also raises questions about your own use of oxo shite. Sources you've provided simply do not directly support the text you have written. Are you looking for a degree yourself? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agreed with duffbeerforme, article is just peppered with trivial mentions. If someone could find just two or three good in-depth references, they could bulldoze this whole thing and rewrite an informative article. But a dozen or more passing mentions do not add up to information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Right now there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 29 December 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 West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor#Stations. ✗plicit 01:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arts/Industrial District station

Arts/Industrial District station (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)

Proposed station, expected to enter service in 2043. Per WP:CRYSTAL, this absolutely should not exist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuchinotsu No. 37

Kuchinotsu No. 37 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I made this article in January of 2021 when I knew less about editing Wikipedia. The only reliable sources I can find about this cultivar are mentions in articles about other cultivars. It was tagged for notability in September this year. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DCsansei, Are you sure that 'Tsunonozomi' is the same as Kuchinotsu No.37? I may withdraw this AfD nomination. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_December_22&oldid=1191185290"