Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to California. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

California

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. To this point, those arguing to keep the article have pointed out correctly that WP:GEOFEAT extends presumed notability to nationally protected places; however, they are incorrect that presumed notability means inherent notability (see definition of presumed at WP:GNG). There is thus a very high burden of proof on those arguing to delete the article to show that the subject is not notable in spite of its presumed notability (this would be the same as coming to a decision that an article that had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" was still not "worthy of notice" in spite of the sources). Those arguing to delete the article have not convincingly demonstrated that this is the case (arguments about lack of sources are an okay start but nobody has addressed the Mercury News references). More convincing are concerns about a close paraphrasing, which this clearly is, but I think this can be dealt with outside of an AfD.

Even if I assign more weight to either side based on policy, I do not see or expect a consensus to emerge from further discussion, so I am closing this now. Malinaccier (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairglen Additions

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

Not all places on the National Register are inherently notable. This article is primarily a paraphrase of the application form (which is neither reliable nor independent), and its only other sources are press releases and other paraphrases of the application form. I can't find any better sources for this, so it fails WP:GNG. – bradv 16:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 16:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 16:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is incorrect. All places on the National Register are in fact inherently notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be easy to verify the content of the article using reliable sources. Notability requires verifiable evidence. – bradv 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have gone through this before. Fairglen Additions is notable becuase it has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places on June 6, 2019 and has reliable sources, e.g. NRHP reference 100004036. Please see WP:GEOFEAT and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27–29 Fountain Alley. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-create as stub. There's zero doubt that Situated within a 1952 urban expansion zone southwest of San Jose's early Willow and other phrasing is plagiarized and edited with an LLM to not be detectable as easily. A stub can exist about Fairglen, but the copy is problematic as is the sourcing. The latter is why I think it's TNT territory. Star Mississippi 16:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is long standing consensus that the documentation needed for a place to meet the NRHP qualifies those buildings for articles under GNG. I'm not sure I necessarily completely agree, but it does look like there is enough there for an article here. I haven't done a COPYVIO search on this one and it does need cleanup, but I don't see the problem with having an article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see National Historic Preservation Act passed in 1966. Also see National Register of Historic Places . Any site that is so deemed by the NRHP is definitely notable. These are not only notable, but so designated by the United States Congress. — Maile (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike possibly most here, I just finished reading that long ... long ... long NRHP form, word by word. The Fairglen Additions are indeed notable. I have no doubt of the notability here. However, it would be helpful if there could be more independent sources (newspapers, etc.) added. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: But doesn't this beg the question, is notability determined by wikipedia's criteria or by someone else's criteria for some other purpose? Even if that someone else is the US Congress. (I can't help but think that the argument that a body in any other country had designated something as notable wouldn't be so easily presumed to be the only argument needed). My read of WP:GEOFEAT is exactly that - a national body saying something is notable should give a presumption of notability here, but is does not necessarily in every case all that is needed. Melcous (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again I would like to emphasize that the only reason this addition is notable is because of Joseph Eichler, and his "Eichler Homes". Eichler is mentioned 110 times in this NRHP document citation [1]. The article, should be redirected or merged to Joseph Eichler or possibly to Willow Glen of which this addition is just that - an addition - to Willow Glen. The reason for its NRHP status is because of the mid-century modern architect/builder Eichler. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the presumption of notability means that there would need to be something overwhelming to prove that presumption wrong. For example, an archeological site on the NRHP, without any publicly available address and any published reports, is one of the few exceptions to this presumption of notability. For what it's worth, this can probably be covered in the Willow Glen, San Jose, article without any problem - we've done this for other NRHP districts as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Places on the National Register are not inherently notable. The relevant guideline is WP:GEOFEAT which says they are presumed notable, which is not the same thing. This is the heart of the question: what would overturn that presumption in favour of notability? My argument would be a total lack of WP:GNG and WP:RS. If all that can be said about it is to paraphrase the (non-neutral) application form for such status, then I do not see how the presumption should apply. And if consensus is that they are notable, I would then agree with Star Mississippi that articles that merely paraphrase the application form should be WP:TNTed. Melcous (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and redirect to the mid-century modern developer/architect Joseph Eichler who is indeed notable (or possibly to Willow Glen of which this addition is a subdivision). It is the fact that Eichler was the architect/developer that is the key core of why this addition achieved NRHP status in the first place. I also somewhat agree with Star Mississippi that this might be a candidate for WP:TNT and stubbification, however I feel more strongly about the redirect. I also agree with Melcous's comment regarding WP:GEOFEAT; not everything on the NRHP is inherently notable, rather the entries are presumed notable not inherently notable. The lack of GNG and RS is key to that argument. Redirect seems like the best solution.Netherzone (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, or at least "don't delete" per WP:GEOFEAT. As to the claim that "not everything on the NRHP is inherently notable", in practice almost everything on the NRHP is listed because it is notable for some reason; these reasons are given in the NRHP nomination form. However, given the copyright concerns, it may be proper to consider a WP:TNT rewrite, anyway.
As to the claim that the "application form isn't reliable", that's just plain wrong. Draft applications are not reliable, but final registration forms have been vetted by architectural experts and historians. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: The form itself is just basic information about what criteria it passed to be on the NRHP. To write an article about the property, the user must do other research, just like creating any other article. Some NRHP articles are written better than others, but the basic sourcing should be research beyond what is on the NRHP form. — Maile (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66, thanks for the clarification. I have no other comments on the registration form itself, but I agree with you that articles should cite additional sources as well, not just the form. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per SportingFlyer and Eastmain. This has been discussed before. Places on the National Register are inherently notable. Lacking RS is not a reason for deletion because the article can always be edited/shortened if necessary. C F A 💬 17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clearfrienda: is there a link available to a previous discussion where there is consensus that being on a/any national body's register makes notability inherent rather than presumed, i.e. more than reasons given in a discussion about a particular site? If not, I'd be keen for this broader discussion to occur as this would make literally millions of sites around the world qualify for an article even without WP:SIGCOV (or indeed any coverage). Personally, I can't help but feel the National Register argument is a little US-centric, and wonder if the discussion would be the same I started creating articles for the 20,000+ nationally heritage listed sites in my small part of the world, or if one of our friends from an Asian or African country did the same. Melcous (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. Places on the National Register are not inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 14:01, 21 June 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 reinstate previous redirect.‎. The redirect that was previously in place seems reasonable; the redirect was hijacked by a sock, so will reinstate that and protect. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Girth Summit _(blether) 14:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J.Williams

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

None of the links appear to be about "J.Williams" and alternate between being about the musician Sam Williams, whose biography doesn't line up here, and other random famous people with the surname "Williams". For example, the first link is about the funeral of Zac William's sister "Sammy Williams", and the birth name turns up no results at all for famous musicians. Feels like it may be a CSD candidate but it's possible I missed a detail here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. None of the sources are about J. Williams. S0091 (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Relevant at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cacaonw999. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 17:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonsense article. This same content was repeatedly readded (replacing the existing disambig) at J. Williams by a bunch of accounts who I assume are socks. C F A 💬 01:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Long term abuse (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japansonglove) trying to create this hoax article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I almost wonder if this is something generated by an AI, and we know how they like to invent stuff... --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete not a hope of this being kept: WP:PROMO, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOPAGE, WP:AUTO all apply to varying degrees, sufficient unto the day to warrant TNT. That's not even taking into account the behavioural disruption, which includes WP:SOCK, WP:SPAM. WP:HOAX, WP:IMPERSONATE. ——Serial Number 54129 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, salt, and redirect to DAB page J. Williams as {{R from other spelling}} and {{R from ambiguous term}}. Narky Blert (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Solberg

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

Article is technically ineligible for a G5, because it got hit by two different UPE socks editing in violation of their respective blocks, and technically ineligible for PROD due to being deleted by PROD before (and, before that, speedied twice).

Subject themselves does not appear significant- out all all the sources, [2] is an interview(by which I mean it's a scan or a print-out she filled in in blue ballpoint), [3] is a site selling her art, [4] is an interview, [5] is from a gallery displaying her art(she was their 'Artist in Resident' at the time of publication), [6] mentions her once in a list, [7] is a link to two interviews, [8] is an interview, [9] is the same as 2 (and still selling her art), [10] is an interview, [11] is her own site, [12] is a video interview, [13] is an interview, [14] is about her art installation, not her, [15] is about her art show, not her, [16] and [17] are the same interviews earlier, this time individually linked, [18] is about a different artist's exhibit that she painted fireworks for(not sigcov worthy fireworks), [19] actually has a paragraph on her (again, not rising to sigcov), [20] has a whole two paragraphs (best source so far), [21] is an announcement of a talk she will give, [22] mentions her work for about two sentences (but is mostly about other artists- but also the second best source), [23] is about an art exhibit, not her, and the Facebook events link is a link on Facebook for an event she planned. I have looked around for additional sources, and haven't found any that would help the subject meet the WP:GNG. And, given that there were two users blocked for likely UPE and socking looking very hard to find such sources, I don't see myself finding any they've missed.

She doesn't appear to meet WP:NARTIST, because the three pieces about her work don't show that she's widely cited or influential, gotten known for originating a new concept, theory, or technique, that she has a major work (or body of works). Her work also hasn't been incorporated into any significant monuments, significant exhibitions, been in a permanent collection or garnered much critical reception. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, California, Colorado, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No listing in the Getty ULAN and all I can find is an article in her school's paper [24]. Source analysis above is good, I don't find anything extra we can use to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suspect the photo is a copyvio, but can't find anything else on the web about it. UPE and paid promotion seem to use copyvio photos here... Oaktree b (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination does an excellent job laying it out and this is an easy call for deletion. Not notable. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Earth Island Institute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Youth Awards

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

No WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Environment, and North America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@208.58.205.56 I am not sure, personally I have no interest in fixing the article Mr Vili talk 06:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a response to @208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as Yale University ([[[25]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[26]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[27]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earth Island Institute. The program seems fairly well-established and is a reasonable search term. However, the sources mentioned here and in the article itself each mostly focus on a single winner as a local human-interest story; sources that cover all of the winners of an award would be significant coverage of the event as opposed to the person, but that doesn't seem to be available here. The sources that don't fall into this category are just listings of scholarship information that seem more like database entries. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene C. Lee

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

Only one (arguably) notable credit, likely to fail WP:NACTOR. KH-1 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Fulmard (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage. Fulmard (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this person is not notable enough and doesn't fit the notability guidelines for people. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a biography, lacks depth and notability. Waqar💬 20:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Diablo Silverado Council

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources. Secondary sources provided are either unreliable or passing mentions. spryde | talk 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America in California#Mount Diablo Silverado Council. There's a lot of content there. The article simply needs a good editor. --evrik ^(talk) 13:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability is only an essay, it saves me from having to type out my argument. Even if a target can't be decided now, a re-direct can be quickly created at any time by any editor. Graywalls (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, basically. Just no notability. This is not unlike what we see in articles on university departments--they are rarely notable in their own right, and that their existence relies on being part of a notable organization doesn't make them notable. I doubt that really any councils are notable--looking at the category and clicking randomly on one, San Diego-Imperial Council, that one is not notable. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. It's weird how some sections of the project just accumulate cruft. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Topic is not notable, as councils, even with so many references (many of which are primary), are not notable to begin with. Also, there isn't much coverage on the topic. Haruka Amaranth 09:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable.
Axad12 (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego-Imperial Council

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources. There is one secondary source, about a small fire in 2004, which does not make the council/camp notable--and one wonders whose bottle rockets they were. Councils/camps from the BSA or any other organization are rarely notable in their own right and this one is no expection. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct to List of councils (Boy Scouts of America). Does not meet WP:NCORP to warrant its standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Drmies.

Axad12 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Storyland Studios

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

Doesn't meet notability; there are no reliable significant coverage; hilghly promotional page 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. czar 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSKJ-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another LPTV with mostly national programming and little-to-no significant coverage to speak of, which is of little surprise for an eventual HC2/Innovate station. A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2006, and yet another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect.. another station to become a redirect.. --Danubeball (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Sylvia

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Not really notable, even as a poker player, I would delete it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion. PsychoticIncall (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SIRS. If you feel that the sources pass SIRS, please provide WP:THREE for evaluation. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6). PsychoticIncall (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIRS, the references must each be independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. None of them provide significant coverage. You have obviously failed to read and understand WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, While there are no big name sources like NYT or AP, I scanned over a few and they seem good enough. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some people seem to have a specific understanding of what significant coverage means, interpreting that anything other than a biography should be discarded. I see it as being any coverage that goes beyond trivial and passing mentions. Jesse Sylvia is mentioned as winning some significant tournaments, and, to me, SIGCOV is present there. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Morse (California attorney)

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

Not a notable person. Possible WP:BLP1E. I removed some scandalous content which was unsourced, but presumably mentioned in Larry J. Kolb's book. No other sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm unsure if this is the same individual mentioned here in connection with the 1992 riots in LA [28]; regardless, it's a name drop. What's used in the article now is simply a biography of a working lawyer. I don't see notability and the lack of sourcing doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Law, Massachusetts, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two cites, one of which seems to be significant coverage, but limited to the beating in Mississippi (no kidnapping mentioned). There's also this which I can't find online.

Associated Press (A.P.), “Beating Charged,” Clarion-Ledger (Jackson MS), October

22, 1964, p. 16. Oblivy (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is barely verifiable (but not through sources contributing to notability) that the 1960s Stanford Frank Morse had the middle name Patrick [29], that the civil rights activist and beating victim was named Frank Morse and was from California, that Frank Patrick Morse is an attorney based in Beverly Hills [30] and was connected to some of the named companies. I could not verify any connection to UC Irvine (COI: my employer). None of the legal work removed from the article nor any of its material after the 1960s looks to make any case at all for notability. All we have left to base an article on is the civil rights story and a long "where are they now" WP:SYNfest. And I don't think we have enough detail on the civil rights story to rise above WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for inability to meet WP:BASIC, and probably WP:BLP1E as well. I was holding off to see if anyone found more sources, but I agree with @David Eppstein this is really a where-are-they-now article for somebody who even at the time was pretty obscure. Happy to reconsider if more sources are found. Oblivy (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tully (app)

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

The sourcing that exists is very weak. Several are interviews with the app's co-founder/promoter, Joyner Lucas, who is a notable musician, but notability is not inherited from him. Other sources appear to be either PR-based; press releases reposted onto other websites. A few passing mentions. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources, particularly if HNHH is not considered reliable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Computing. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Press releases do not reach WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 18:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TriTech Software Systems

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

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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing I found other than brief entries on sites that list companies is this, and it is about how this company/software using a separate bit of software for customer service. It does include some info about the company but I don't think it meets NCORP. As mentioned on the talk page, most of the sources in the article have gone 404. I'll check back to see if anyone finds good sources. Lamona (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that this source from the article is still live and is not bad, but still probably not near NCORP. Lamona (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Cushing (poet)

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

This poet appears to be non-notable under WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. His books of poetry are functionally self-published (Cahuenga Press is a cooperative owned and run by five "poet-members" that exists to publish its owners' work). No substantial reviews of his work appear to be available. I can only find one item of WP:SIGCOV, a local news story. The rest are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or non-independent mentions in affiliated sources (e.g. college magazine). Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, and Radio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to be notable as a poet, but even giving some latitude I don't think this person achieves notability. He has published books of poetry but all of the ones I can find were published by Cahuenga Press of which he is one of the owners. The books aren't widely held in libraries (cf WorldCat). He is an academic but I only found two articles by him and neither had any citations. Lamona (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find sourcing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Even local news doesn't appear to have much coverage of him, and we have no evidence of any kind of distinguished professorial title that might pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zugara

AfDs for this article:

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

Some days ago, Wikilover3509 (talk · contribs) tried to nominate this article for deletion, but ended up editing a previous nomination for a previous article at this title. Their rationale follows:

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.

This is mostly procedural on my part; I offer no opinion or further comment beyond noting that this has been tagged as, among other things, a possible WP:CORP failure since 2012. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this company not noteworthy for inclusion when other similar advertising/technology companies such as The Barbarian Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Barbarian_Group) and AR software companies such as Metaio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaio) and Total Immersion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Immersion_(augmented_reality) seem to be fine? MHSzymczyk (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MHSzymczyk That is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not a valid argument. If you can show significant coverage in reliable sources, that would be much more convincing. Toadspike [Talk] 12:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The Venture Beat articles are RS, they're mentioned about the virtual dressing rooms in the NY Times article. The virtual dressing room seems to have gotten traction, I'd say we have just barely enough to pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the VB website is RS but which one of the stories meets GNG/NCORP? There are 4 stories, I can't figure out which one you might be referring to, for me the all fail either/or CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. The virtual dressingroom details are all derived from their Press Release on their patent grant. The NYT article mentions the company once, because it included a quote from the company's CEO. Fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous relist has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:15, 26 June 2024 (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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Article is REFBOMBED so I won't provide a source analysis but if anyone feels there are sources that have been overlooked or missed, please link below and indicate which page/paragraph contains content that meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough significant coverage at this time. The results of internet searches are either self-published, blogs, and mere brief mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Neither of the two Keep views offered a cogent, P&G-based argument, and were discarded, leaving us with a unanimous consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 21:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huston Huddleston

AfDs for this article:

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

This subject appears to fall afoul of WP:CRIM, specifically the criminal...should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: 1) The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or 2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

I would contend that neither of these conditions is met. I don't think there's any argument that the motivation or execution of the crime itself was unusual or of historic importance, or that the victim was a renowned individual. While it was stated at RFUD that the subject is a high-profile individual, coverage since their fall from grace (i.e. post-2018) is extremely limited, and that which does exist ([31]) suggests that the subject is intentionally avoiding the limelight and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Following the guidance at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, I would conclude that Huddleston is a low-profile individual at this time.

Even before the indictment, significant coverage in RS is limited to the context of Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum; if we had an article on that topic (or if the biography of his father Floyd Huddleston, made any mention of Huston and/or we had a source to back up that claim) a redirect outcome would be appropriate, but we don't at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Crime, and California. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Huddleston does mention Huston:

"On December 30, 1965, Huddleston married Nancy Adams, a commercial jingle singer, at the First Baptist Church chapel in Memphis, Tennessee. Huddleston died from a heart attack on September 27, 1991, at a hospital located in Panorama City, Los Angeles. Huddleston was survived by his wife Nancy, his son, Huston, and his mother, Hettye T. Huddleston." Miri1966 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please also note that Huston Huddleston has not been avoiding limelight and has been making independent films (hiring underage actresses) which he has posted about on his own social media. It does not seem relevant to include in the article but it is in context for why the article should remain. Miri1966 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTINHERITED. Angryapathy (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say his notability is due entirely to being Floyd Huddleston's son, only that it is not true that Floyd's biography fails to mention him.

His notability is anchored in his own activities as a writer/director which are ongoing; the museum project which has had numerous news articles and financial campaigns; his conviction which merits documentation as he has continued to work in both listed areas. Miri1966 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added a couple articles I don't think this guy deserves an article but he is attempting to open a museum for kids as a convicted pedophile. This is a developing situation in the media with a lot of coverage .Since it is in the public interest and ongoing , I vote keep. Bigwombat (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a perfect example of WP:ONEEVENT. The news stories picked it up for a news cycle, and then immediately didn't care about him. He wasn't notable before or after the short flurry of news coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an ongoing event for years between 2018 and 2024 and there are additional news sources that I can provide - additional information may still be pending. This information being captured here has been critical. Miri1966 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know AfD is not cleanup but in its current state this article is so incoherent that there is no credible claim to notability (basically what others have said above), which makes assessing sources for GNG kinda irrelevant. The two !votes to keep are unconvincing – the first doesn't seem to be based on policy at all, while the second says I don't think this guy deserves an article (not sure if that's argued on grounds of morality or notability) and seems to be taking a RGW perspective. Toadspike [Talk] 19:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoopla Software

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. PROD removed by IP editor claiming "I could find sources" without actually adding any sources. – Teratix ₵ 07:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. – Teratix ₵ 07:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources appear to be primary or WP:ORGTRIV coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2024 (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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voskos Greek Yogurt

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously deleted, then re-created. Nothing seems to have changed to establish notability. The article cites four sources but the 1st, 3rd and 4th are press releases, on trade blogs that will publish anything about products. The 2nd is a very trivial mention. None of these would seem to establish notability under WP:CORP. Might be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but I can't view what was deleted and it was a long time ago. Here2rewrite (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Products, and California. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All available sources are press releases (and other primary sources), WP:TRADES publications for the dairy/packaged foods industries that do not qualify for WP:NCORP, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in online reviews of yogurts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items and trade journal mentions of this product. Agree that what's used now in the article isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myrlin Hermes

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I can't think of any other applicable grounds for notability for this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, India, England, California, Hawaii, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've added several refs and details to the article (while removing unsourced content). There is no significant coverage of Hermes. Her first book won a Lambda Literary Award for Bisexual Literature in 2011, but even if that's considered an important enough award for WP:ANYBIO #1, I consider that the absence of any coverage of her outweighs that. I found a few reviews of her first book in major newspapers, so an article on Careful What You Wish For could be justified. (But I'll note that the Washington Post reviewer generously concluded, "Myrlin Hermes is 23 years old, an age at which having published a book at all is a substantial accomplishment. There's plenty of time for her to turn into a real writer."[32]) Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lew Childre. Owen× ☎ 17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HeartMath Institute

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

Content previously deleted for lack of notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartmath Institute, recreated under a trivially different capitalization. This is a fringe institute, for which the refbomb of references are either passing mentions, not independent, or not reliable sources. This should at best be redirected to Lew Childre, as the original Heartmath Institute has been. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gargleafg, Jytdog, Bon courage, 79616gr, and TTTommy111: Pinging participants in the previous discussion, although most are not long absent (and one has changed username). BD2412 T 17:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 10:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On its face, the organization seems notable. However, a closer look at the references seem like it is simply promoting itself. For instance, this article in Wired has a disclaimer that the writer received one of the devices and is not a doctor (curious why a non-medical professional would do a story on it). Then there is this in the Business Insider but looks like all the information was supplied by the org ("According to Doc Childre, founder of the Institute of HeartMath") so not independent. They simply do not pass the test of WP:SIRS. If anything, a redirect to Lew Childre as an WP:ATD would suffice. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the Business Insider quote you mention to is distinguish between what the institute claims their device can do and the author's own review. This is exactly what an independent source should do. That being said, I think there's better sources than the Business Insider article anyway. ChaseK (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fringe but notable. For WP:RS about their non-science claims there's 1 from WP:INDYUK, 2 3 from Wired, and 4 from Engadget which are all rated reliable in WP:PS. With respect to "coherence" there's a literature review 5, and for their fringe theories as per WP:PARITY there's also 6 by James Coyne and 7 by Steven Novella. There's plenty of reliable information here you just have to use the sources judiciously. Since Lew Childre's notability mostly derives from the institute, if anything I'd add a redirect the other way; there's far more coverage of the institute than him. ChaseK (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive my skepticism, but you are the article creator, and of your total of somewhat less than 350 edits to Wikipedia, more than 2/3 have been with respect to this sole topic. I would infer from those numbers that you might have a disproportionate sense of its notability. BD2412 T 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - This seems to be an attack on me rather than a reply to the substance of my comment. The purpose of deletion discussions is to determine whether the subject meets the notability criterion, not whether editors have a "disproportionate sense" of notability. Nor do I think it's appropriate for an administrator to disparage the contribution counts of a (newish) user. ChaseK (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be clear, I find the citations to be insufficient for an entity that, even as a non-profit, must still meet WP:NCORP, which is a fairly high standard given the number of companies that would like to see their products featured in Wikipedia. It is fairly well-established that having a notable product does not automatically make the manufacturer notable, and a product review that mentions the manufacturer is still a passing mention for that manufacturer. BD2412 T
      - To quote WP:PRODUCT: "In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article." In this case the org has broader notability than its products, and so the org article should be preferred over product articles. ChaseK (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear what you are saying but if notability of this company is based on skepticism, the references must still meet WP:ORGCRIT. These do not. It looks like the company did some well-planned press which gained a little traction about a decade ago and then a few who guest posted on some sites to counter it. if the company was worthy of notice, we would have plenty of in-depth coverage showing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No the skeptical sources 5-7 don't establish notability, they only contextualize the other coverage. Sources 1-4 were meant to establish notability. For example: 1: Jerome Burne is health journalist independent of the subject, The Independant is generally considered reliable, and the article has substantial coverage. Seems fine for use in non-WP:MEDRS statements. ChaseK (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this is promotional and unencyclopedic. I won't revert since this is going through discussion, but if the page is kept it would need to go through a discussion per WP:ONUS. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm fine if you remove it - I added it mostly because I thought it was interesting that much of their fringe research is being funded by the U.S. government. To be honest I find WP:VNOT to be very vague so I'm not sure how it applies here. ChaseK (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. We also have to focus on WP:NPOV. If adding it because you find it "interesting that much of their fringe search is being funded by the U.S. government," that is clearly trying to lead readers to a conclusion which we don't do on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: I would also point out, relevant to the discussion, that there are government contractors that receive billions or tens of billions of dollars per year. A company receiving $4 million over a twenty year period is of no moment. BD2412 T 00:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, given the paucity of the sources; thank you CNMall41. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The institute has been covered far more extensively than Childre, so shouldn't the redirect go that way? Or delete both articles? ChaseK (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect as per above. WP:NCORP fail. Not every pseudoscience org can have a Wikipedia page. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slight POV slant, would need significant rewriting to be in line with MOS, but this is largely irrelevant due to the questionability of the references and previous AfD verdict.Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 13:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added this to the Paranormal-related deletion discussion list. 5Q5|^✉ 10:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per WP:ATTACK. This page exists primarily to disparage its subject. JSFarman (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Sallis

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

Borderline promo piece on a businessperson that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. According to WP:RSPS, we should not accept Forbes contributor pieces nor articles on Medium as evidence of notability, as they are essentially self-published and/or have very little editorial oversight. The other sources are also quite suspect and either look like blogs or are written in a very promotional way, which indicates some sort of conflict of interest. My own searches found nothing better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Finance, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:G11. "President of Rapid Credit Boosters. Sallis is a philanthropist, motivational speaker [...]" give me a break. BrigadierG (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per BrigadierG. It's not just a "borderline promo piece" it literally is a promo piece. Even if it wasn't a promo piece he does not seem notable anyway. Procyon117 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Antoine Sallis meets the notability criteria as demonstrated by several reliable sources.  He was featured in Black Enterprise and Rolling Out, which provide significant coverage of his career and achievements:
 - Black Enterprise: [Antoine Sallis, the Credit Genius, teaches others how to maximize the full power of credit](https://www.blackenterprise.com/antoine-sallis-the-credit-genius-teaches-others-how-to-maximize-the-full-power-of-credit/)
 - Rolling Out: [Antoine Sallis, the Credit Genius, talks about his unique leadership style](https://rollingout.com/2022/04/30/antoine-sallis-the-credit-genius-talks-about-his-unique-leadership-style/ )

Additionally, he is a published author with books that have ISBNs and are listed in reliable databases such as Google Books:

 - Google Books: [The Great American Credit Secret](https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Great_American_Credit_Secret.html?id=pSH_zwEACAAJ)

These sources clearly establish his notability and warrant the retention of this article.

Please sign your comments so we know who this is. Other than that, the first two links are just interviews that don't show any notability. And having a book in Google Books doesn't guarantee notability. Procyon117 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've removed some known SEO sinks. The rest is vanity press publications. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing concrete to establish notablility, fails GNG and looks more of promotional as well. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:17, 14 June 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. ✗plicit 04:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Braden Olthoff

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV at [[33]], [[34]], [[35]] and [[36]]. Let'srun (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see an evaluation of recently located sources, perhaps from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to be a lot of buzz about a pine-tar incident (not to the point of 1E, but a factor in considering one of the smaller publications above), but I'm convinced that the TP-NOLA articles are very in-depth and secondary, and the WDSU coverage is suitably in-depth. Would it be better if there were more widespread coverage? Yeah, but I think this meets the GNG under a generous reading of WP:THREE. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to nominator: Joeykai, please explain when creating an AfD nomination. See WP:ATA with special attention to the WP:JUSTNOTABLE sections. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Blonder

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

Unsourced, appears to fail WP:GNG based on a quick Google (web/news/books) search. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have speedied this for promotion, reads like something off a business profile on linkedin. I find no sources about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slender PR fluff. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No sources, no verifiable content, no significant accomplishments even described. Close to A7 speedy or BLPPROD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Until recently this page contained a list of films, including a few films which won awards at various festivals. However, the list was not supported by citations. A new editor came along a few days ago and removed the list; I presume that this was done because of the lack of citations. My own preference would have been to first carry out a significant hunt for citations for those awards before deleting them all. I do agree that without documentation of the impact of this filmmaker's work it's hard to argue that the page should exist. Qflib (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 8 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper

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

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [37] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.

...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers. What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page. The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area. In this sense, the subject is clearly notable. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in lieu of closing this as "No consensus". As one editor stated, this is borderline, with different editors assessing PROF contributions differently so we need to move the needle one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe this person is significant enough to have an article EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your reasons? See the note on your talk page by Liz. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The delete !votes further up are heavily focused on evaluation per PROF, but, as I said above, foreign policy and/or govt/ngo analysts do not fit neatly under this heading. Much of their work is not circulated publicly like academic work, so tends not to have the same citation statistics, and may even be classified in certain instances. Most of these folks would not be notable under PROF, though Cooper arguably is. Here, I think further weight should be put on the article creator's record as an expert in this area, the high-level positions this person has held at DoD etal, and the fact that in several other WP articles in this space refer to him by name. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I am 128.252.210.1 above. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an interesting policy question. We have policies for WP:ANYBIO, which requires evidence that the person has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". It isn't clear to me how we would determine that. Assuming that we don't look at this as a WP:NPROF then we have WP:AUTHOR. That has "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and then "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique...". Unfortunately it doesn't say how we determine that the person has had the requisite impact on their field. One way is to look for citations, another would be awards. The only other way to determine this, AFAIK, would be if there are articles about the person in reliable sources that make this case. With this person, what evidence do we have to make this determination? Lamona (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as someone who can make a prima facie claim to being regarded as an important figure and/or has published impactful publications. Also it's good the article doesn't suffer too badly from hype language. Trying to measure impact by citation count, asking whether co-publications count the same, etc., runs the risk of driving the discussion into a kind of pseudo-empiricism that masks the larger question of whether he has enough notable real-world activity that the encyclopedia benefits from having verifiable information about him. I'd rather this close as keep than no consensus, as NC tends to invite do-overs and the way forward will be no more clear nxzt time (unless he gets a named chair or something)Oblivy (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc.

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

Nominating following PROD and refund request. Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Appears to mainly cite primary sources, with none sustaining a claim to notability. Various searches are struggling to turn up anything. Mdann52 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company went through a few name changes: first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-merger-of-their-two-companies/

The company's patent on split band filtering was a foundational patent in on frequency repeaters for cellular mobile radio. It is cited by 36 other patents, see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783843A/en Rabcfi (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources about the company found, some patents and government decisions. Listed in a paper here [38], but not really about the organization. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to University of California, San Diego#Student life. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K35DG-D

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

Fails WP:GNG; merge with University of California, San Diego#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Merge it with a merge tag instead of an AFD tag then? Still think it should be merged, it’s just a weird choice not to use the tag. Danubeball (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for delete, just a vague comment on merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Television stations meet GNG based on their publicly available license application alone. There's an SNG that explains this but its name eludes me. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge They had a license, they stopped operating and they fail WP:GNG. Merging to the mother-university is the best option. The Banner talk 07:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of California, San Diego#Student life: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Contray to what the IP said, we no longer keep television stations articles just because the station is licenced by the FCC, based on this 2021 RfC. All we have here are some FCC licenses, which don't qualify as SIGCOV. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego#Monasteries, convents and seminaries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of the Covenant Monastery

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources. It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Iraq, and California. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego#Monasteries, convents and seminaries. I found nothing in NewspaperArchive.com via WP:TWL, and the local newspaper for El Cajon, California doesn't have anything obvious online (though I doubt that they have older papers online). Searching is difficult because the literal translation of the much larger organization, B'nai B'rith, is the same as the name of this monastery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Television Network

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of coverage about the network's activities. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This article still needs work to make it less promotional, though. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fox (author)

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

Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Finance, Law, Internet, California, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).

Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention: @Nelsonave21 — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).

In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.

If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.

We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.

What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)

Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?

Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?

Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.

Scott

p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: Yes, please share the PDFs here. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 00:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. How do we share PDFs here, though? There's no attachments tool in the toolbar.

Thanks. Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: You'd have to upload it on another website and share the links here. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found two book reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found four more book reviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!

Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.

We have also put up a Google Drive folder here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j0KUxFYUl4A5qAo3-sKwzr-Z4MBIBIZI?usp=sharing That contains a couple of dozen more press clippings, major market book reviews, foreign book covers, etc. for publicity that has since fallen offline.

If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.

Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.

Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.

Thanks again very much for your work here.

Scott

https://antrepreneur.uci.edu/2023/08/07/uci-antrepreneur-center-joins-forces-with-the-oc-startup-council-to-empower-student-entrepreneurs/

https://www.engine.is/news/startupseverywhere-orange-county-calif

https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/click-millionaires-work-less-live-more-internet-business-you-love

https://alliancesocal.org/news/2024/03/01/preparing-founders-for-success-and-connections-at-happy-hour-in-irvine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO6JdpN17P8

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2012/09/04/click-millionaires-7-secrets-to-less-work-and-more-life/

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13132762-click-millionaires

https://www.eofire.com/podcast/scott-fox-of-click-millionaires-interview-with-john-lee-dumas-of-entrepreneur-on-fire-2/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58917442-e-riches-2-0

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108552513-internet-zenginleri

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44557823-click-millionaires-czyli-internetowi-milionerzy-e-biznes-na-twoich-zasad

https://www.beckman-foundation.org/latest-news/irvine-tech-week/

https://www.revolv3.com/resources/what-makes-orange-county-the-hottest-hub-for-startups-today

https://www.socalentrepreneurship.org/scce-24

https://www.operatepod.com/e/scott-fox-orange-county-startup-council/

https://www.cakeequity.com/podcasts/how-to-raise-first-rounds-scott-fox

https://startupgamechanger.org/speakers/scott-fox/ Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have any editors willing to look through some of these references brought up in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article as is is too promotional but the book reviews presented by Vortex look good. He passes WP:NAUTHOR, his works themselves appear to have been sufficiently reviewed enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also additional reviews of his work on Newspapers.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. He has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have noted above, the subject has received enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.Sal2100 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hunt (journalist)

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

Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Jamiebuba, who recently accepted the draft at AfC. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Environment, Internet, California, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is notable as a journalist. Several coverage from BBC and also a host of a show on BBC as well. Subject is a main personality on a notable international station. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 02:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC) – Note: User has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.[reply]
- Please provide a valid, policy-based reason when commenting at AfDs. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, his cause/work may be notable but notability isn't inherited. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The controversy section isn't terribly notable, rest of the sourcing is simple confirmation of employment. I don't find sources we'd use to build an article. Sadly as a free-lancer, there likely will not be much critical notice of their work; this assumes no awards such as a Pulitzer or an Emmy. I don't find any sort of confirmation of awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 13 June 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.

Proposed deletions

for occasional archiving