Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 8 | 17 | 40 | 81 | 146 | ||
FL | 3 | 3 | 6 | ||||
A | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
GA | 10 | 37 | 85 | 400 | 64 | 596 | |
B | 49 | 146 | 400 | 1,174 | 2,835 | 4,604 | |
C | 20 | 168 | 749 | 6,664 | 3 | 15,115 | 22,719 |
Start | 4 | 96 | 1,169 | 24,200 | 12 | 57,402 | 82,883 |
Stub | 1 | 17 | 383 | 31,612 | 7 | 45,746 | 77,766 |
List | 4 | 4 | 169 | 1 | 165 | 343 | |
Category | 7 | 11,326 | 11,333 | ||||
Disambig | 1 | 29 | 30 | ||||
File | 355 | 355 | |||||
Project | 7 | 7 | |||||
Redirect | 407 | 1,419 | 1,826 | ||||
Template | 2 | 852 | 854 | ||||
NA | 12 | 13 | 25 | ||||
Other | 1 | 26 | 58 | 85 | |||
Assessed | 92 | 485 | 2,835 | 64,759 | 14,082 | 121,327 | 203,580 |
Unassessed | 1 | 112 | 1,196 | 1,309 | |||
Total | 92 | 485 | 2,836 | 64,871 | 14,082 | 122,523 | 204,889 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 986,932 | Ω = 5.23 |
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
- Portal:Arts
- Portal:Geography - to browse for a region in case the bio is a good candidate for a regional portal
- Members
- General
- Actors • Architects • Artists • Illustrators • Painters • Photographers • Sculptors • Comic artists • Comedians • Dancers • Directors • Musicians • Poets • Writers and critics
- FAs:
- GAs:
- All articles that are part of this work group
- AfDs:
- John Mandel at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mandel (3 January 2010) Kept
- Dawn Geary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Geary (9 July 2009)
- Michael Bair at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bair (14 September 2008)
- Myami Kurosaki at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myami Kurosaki (5 January 2008)
- Sean Scullion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Scullion (5 January 2008)
- Zelda Young at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelda Young (31 December 2007)
- Cher Hubsher at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cher Hubsher (20 December 2007 – 27 December 2007) Deleted
- Raven Hanson at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Hanson (25 October 2007 – 6 November 2007) Deleted
- PRODs:
- Rob Dorn (via WP:PROD on 27 December 2007) Deleted
- Millie Clode (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Deleted
- Heather young (model) (via WP:PROD on 6 December 2007) Deleted
- Notability questioned:
- FAC:
- FAR:
- none •
- FARC:
- none •
- GA Noms:
- Nik Wallenda
- Jacob van Ruisdael
- Henryk Stażewski
- Elizabeth Siddal
- add yours here when you nominate on candidate page
- Review:
- none •
- Article requests::
- John_Buscema: There's a debate between the current version and this version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - requesting input to arrive at a consensus integrating both versions.
- Pierce O'Donnell — California's 22nd congressional district candidate[1] Los Angeles lawyer Buchwald v. Paramount screenwriter [2] author ISBN 1-56584-958-2 ISBN 0-385-41686-5 [3] California Fair Political Practices Commission[4][5][6][7]
- William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
- Misc:
Add this to-do list to your User page! {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts and entertainment/Announcements}}
Directions for expanding any division below
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Tagging articles
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding a&e-work-group=yes
to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles.
Members
- come help with the Bronwen Mantel article Smith Jones 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Lovelaughterlife (talk · contribs) Worked extensively on some biographies; reverted vandalism some others
- Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs)
- Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs)
- Ozgod (talk · contribs)
- Susanlesch (talk · contribs), mostly inactive
- EraserGirl (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
General
- {{entertainer-stub}}
Infoboxes
- {{Infobox Person}}
Requested articles
The Unfathomable Vastmess of God by Professor Muhammad Khan Hastal www.sdc-ckl.tk mkminhas2003@yahoo.com contact on this address for this book
Actors
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (a child project of this workgroup).
Architects
- Portal:Architecture
- {{Infobox Architect}}
- {{architect-stub}}
- {{US-architect-stub}}
- {{UK-architect-stub}}
- Category:Architects
Artists
Announcements/To-Do
- Missing articles
Categories
- Category:Artists
- Category:Artists by nationality
- Category:Artisans
- Category:Artists by genre
- Category:Artists by medium
- Category:Artists by period
- Category:Artists who committed suicide
- Category:Executed artists
- Category:Artist groups and collectives
- Category:Hugo Award winning artists
- Category:LGBT visual artists
- Category:Latin American artists
- Category:Murdered artists
- Category:Outsider artists
- Category:Women in art
Illustrators
Painters
- {{painter-stub}}
- {{US-painter-stub}}
- {{Australia-painter-stub}}
- {{Canada-painter-stub}}
- {{China-painter-stub}}
- {{Netherlands-painter-stub}}
- {{France-painter-stub}}
- {{Germany-painter-stub}}
- {{Iran-painter-stub}}
- {{Italy-painter-stub}}
- {{Spain-painter-stub}}
- {{UK-painter-stub}}
- Category:Painters
Photographers
Sculptors
Comic artists
Visual arts deletions
Visual arts
- Anukul Munshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another non-notable "Mother of Pearl" artist, part of a walled garden of articles on the Munshi/Munsi family. Likely a UPE or COI creation. A BEFORE search returns nothing on this person, and I was unable to verify any of the claims nor the awards. Relies on one author's unverifiable writings on the Munsi/Munshi family that is used in all of these articles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Visual arts, India, and West Bengal Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. There are only two sources listed in references, and they appear to credit the same author, so there are not multiple sources here. They are also apparently offline sources that I am unable to find any record of, so I am not sure that they are independent or reliable or even exist. I have been unable to find any sources. Elspea756 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- 100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage for this book. This isn't worth a merge to the curator's page because it is unreferenced and doesn't fit well into his her biography. I'm not sure if such a title is worth a redirect to the curator. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, and England. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well as the article creator I disagree. You may not be familiar with the museum, but considering the large number of paintings to choose from, the distillation of notability to just 100 by the then curator of the collection is significant as an amplifier within the wider world of exhibitions during this period. The purpose of such catalogs were keepsakes for visitors, so perfect as a tool to inform casual Wikipedia readers. If the museum ever created a guide for their overall top 100 paintings it would be significant for the same reason. Saying it doesn't "fit well into his biography" is surprising, to say the least. Jane (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jane023 It is irrelevant whether I am familiar with the museum or not. Notability does not work that way on Wikipedia, but rather per WP:BK and WP:Stand-alone lists in this case. It has no coverage as a book, and it doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone list. If the museum ever created such a guide, that guide would still need significant coverage. By "fits well into his biography", I mean that it would make his article look awkward to merge a non-notable list into her article. I, at least, have never seen such a thing. The only thing is that I typed "his" instead of "her". SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes I see we are miscommunicating on a different level however. I was referring to the notability of the paintings of course. Individual curators are notable for their contributions to the study of paintings, as are the institutions that hold them. Jane (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I realize that the paintings are notable, but such a list doesn't work per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which states, "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We would need significant coverage referring specifically to "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand your definition of stand-alone. This list does not stand alone in any sense. Are you referring to incoming links or categories? This is a typical museum guide list, such as many others on Wikipedia. For institutions with very large collections, it is customary to have more than one type of catalog for a collection, such as this one. Jane (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not my definition. "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list." Please read what I linked to. SL93 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I picked List of works in the Museum of Modern Art at random from the many museum lists on Wikipedia. Works at the Museum of Modern Art have been discussed in the context of the group with works such as "A Landmark Acquisition for MoMA's Architecture and Design Department". In this case, only the curator or individual works have been discussed in reliable sources. There has been no such coverage about the book or list "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your list example is exactly the point, because that list actually says it is a random selection: "This is a partial list of works in the Museum of Modern Art, and organized by type and department." This list is not randomly crowd-sourced, but published by a national museum for arguably it's most significant department by the curator of that department. You could use the notability logic for this painting which probably deserves an article and was purchased by the museum the year that this catalog was published: commons:File:Helene Rouart in her Father's Study.jpg. Here is a more in-depth discussion of that acquistion published a few years later in 1984 Acquisition in focus : Edgar Degas : Hélène Rouart in her father's study and in 2000 the painting was discussed in the Guardian here. Again, It makes sense that individual paintings are discussed elsewhere - this is a general souvenir guidebook for the public, and it is published lists of exhibits I am referring to. Jane (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting I just noticed this 1994 edition example here. I only noticed because the cover illustration is different. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your list example is exactly the point, because that list actually says it is a random selection: "This is a partial list of works in the Museum of Modern Art, and organized by type and department." This list is not randomly crowd-sourced, but published by a national museum for arguably it's most significant department by the curator of that department. You could use the notability logic for this painting which probably deserves an article and was purchased by the museum the year that this catalog was published: commons:File:Helene Rouart in her Father's Study.jpg. Here is a more in-depth discussion of that acquistion published a few years later in 1984 Acquisition in focus : Edgar Degas : Hélène Rouart in her father's study and in 2000 the painting was discussed in the Guardian here. Again, It makes sense that individual paintings are discussed elsewhere - this is a general souvenir guidebook for the public, and it is published lists of exhibits I am referring to. Jane (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand your definition of stand-alone. This list does not stand alone in any sense. Are you referring to incoming links or categories? This is a typical museum guide list, such as many others on Wikipedia. For institutions with very large collections, it is customary to have more than one type of catalog for a collection, such as this one. Jane (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I realize that the paintings are notable, but such a list doesn't work per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which states, "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We would need significant coverage referring specifically to "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes I see we are miscommunicating on a different level however. I was referring to the notability of the paintings of course. Individual curators are notable for their contributions to the study of paintings, as are the institutions that hold them. Jane (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jane023 It is irrelevant whether I am familiar with the museum or not. Notability does not work that way on Wikipedia, but rather per WP:BK and WP:Stand-alone lists in this case. It has no coverage as a book, and it doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone list. If the museum ever created such a guide, that guide would still need significant coverage. By "fits well into his biography", I mean that it would make his article look awkward to merge a non-notable list into her article. I, at least, have never seen such a thing. The only thing is that I typed "his" instead of "her". SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well as the article creator I disagree. You may not be familiar with the museum, but considering the large number of paintings to choose from, the distillation of notability to just 100 by the then curator of the collection is significant as an amplifier within the wider world of exhibitions during this period. The purpose of such catalogs were keepsakes for visitors, so perfect as a tool to inform casual Wikipedia readers. If the museum ever created a guide for their overall top 100 paintings it would be significant for the same reason. Saying it doesn't "fit well into his biography" is surprising, to say the least. Jane (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirectto Dillian Gordon. "doesn't fit well" makes little sense to me. He made the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- PARAKANYAA I never said such a thing about a redirect. For a redirect, I was thinking about how probable of a search term it is, but I now guess it doesn't truly matter.SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean if it's a book she wrote that's always a valid redirect unless it's so vague as to be useless. It is not vague, so I don't see why not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Change vote to Keep per Cunard. Also who turned my name into a red link lol? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- PARAKANYAA I never said such a thing about a redirect. For a redirect, I was thinking about how probable of a search term it is, but I now guess it doesn't truly matter.SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Significant coverage is simply missing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. One of the two listed "References" is another Wikipedia article, the other is the subject of the article. I have not been able to find any reliable independent sources. Elspea756 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- Delete; the book doesn't meet our criteria for notability. d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Catalog/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso is a better place for this information. Ham II (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If a list like List of works in the Museum of Modern Art would be created for the National Gallery then this book could serve as ONE OF the references. The book itself does not meet requirements for an article. I would advise Jane to make a copy of this article, which is destined for deletion, with the idea of using this content as the basis for a list of key works at the National Gallery. The problem is using the book as the article focus rather than the artworks themselves. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a book that should be treated as a novel that gets "reviews". If anyone reviewed it, it was probably museum nerds in London. That does not detract from it's notability as a selection of important paintings. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Non-fiction books do indeed get reviews, especially those that add to a discipline or area of study. If this article is to be analyzed as an article about the book, rather than about the institution, then one needs to establish if this book is "esteemed" by the community it could serve. Some below have unearthed reviews. The question is whether those reviews alone make this book notable. I'm still going with "delete" since the Hatwell is a mere paragraph and the Cole is one page. The policy states "non-trivial" sources so I expect something more in depth. The Cole review MIGHT meet that, but the Hatwell does not, IMO. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would argue that any top museum willing to risk snide comments in the art world by distilling their huge list of items on show to a number approaching something browsable on a mobile phone (100 is still a bit long) deserve our support. It was only in the 1980s that paperback guidebooks became more available, and generally were only made by top-ticket museums. Goodness knows there is less and less funding available to produce such guidebooks, and it may be a dying genre, but I do think it would be worthwhile to set up some guidelines for covering museum guidebooks and exhibition catalogues on Wikipedia, if only to avoid comparing them to generic non-fiction. Jane (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Non-fiction books do indeed get reviews, especially those that add to a discipline or area of study. If this article is to be analyzed as an article about the book, rather than about the institution, then one needs to establish if this book is "esteemed" by the community it could serve. Some below have unearthed reviews. The question is whether those reviews alone make this book notable. I'm still going with "delete" since the Hatwell is a mere paragraph and the Cole is one page. The policy states "non-trivial" sources so I expect something more in depth. The Cole review MIGHT meet that, but the Hatwell does not, IMO. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Lamona: There are already two other list articles for works in the National Gallery: Collection of the National Gallery, London and Catalogue of paintings in the National Gallery, London. There is no need for more than one in an encyclopaedia; probably the first should be deleted and the second should have illustrations added to it. That second page should perhaps also be renamed to List of works in the National Gallery, as it includes the single significant work in the collection which isn't a painting, Leonardo's Virgin and Child with Saint Anne and Saint John the Baptist. Ham II (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a book that should be treated as a novel that gets "reviews". If anyone reviewed it, it was probably museum nerds in London. That does not detract from it's notability as a selection of important paintings. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I found no reviews. It has minor presence in libraries as per WorldCat. The book is cited in G-Scholar less than one dozen times. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
SourcesA book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Lubbock, Tom (2001-08-24). "Don't take this book as the last word on art. It can be only an introduction". The Independent. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.The review notes: "On the other hand, as the book is intended for beginners, some guidelines seem useful. For example, to fill it up with the most famous pictures would be pointless. People are going to bump into ... anyway, in the windows of poster shops. A little adventurousness, even eccentricity, is wise. It's good, for example, that Georges de la Tour is represented not by his famous, dreamy, candle-lit visions, but by one of his sharp-edged card-cheating scenes. What's more, the choices should inspire further exploration. What's depressing about having Caravaggio represented by his early, static Lute Player is not only that it's far from his best, but that this choice conceals from the novice the terrific excitement of Caravaggio's art. It does not truly introduce. Overall, this selection is as good as any. But, actually, for a really engaging introduction, you don't want a book of the 100 greatest paintings."- Cole, R. (March 1984). "100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso (Book Review)". Museums Journal. Vol. 83. pp. 244–245. EBSCOhost 513730664. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Google Books.
The review notes: "The publication of this volume by the National Gallery marks a new venture in that it is sponsored by Messrs Coutts & Co , bankers to the Gallery since 1864. Let us hope that this volume will be succeeded by others and that the example given by this kind of sponsorship is followed elsewhere. One hundred paintings from the National Gallery (approximately five percent of the total collection) have been selected by Dillian Gordon as examples of the richness and range of this famous collection. The paintings are reproduced at full-page size and in an excellent full-colour rendering. The Gallery's most famous paintings are here: Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks and cartoon of the Virgin of the Rocks and cartoon of the Virgin and Št Anne, Bellini's Doge and Botticelli's Venus and Mars, Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne and the Rembrandt Self-Portrait, van Eyck's Arnolfini Marriage and Vermeer's Woman at a Virginal, Velasquez' Rokeby Venus and Goya's Dona Isabel de Porcel. Coming closer to home, we find Constable's Hay Wain, Turner's Fighting Temeraire and the great French paintings such as Renoir's Les Parapluies, Seurat's Bathers at Asnieres and Van Gogh's famous Sunflowers. There are also less well-known works: Pisanello's darkly gleaming Vision of St Eustach, a Canaletto, which takes us a few yards away from the vistas of the Grand Canal to a Stonemason's Yard, a plump and motherly Madame de Pompadour by Drouais, The Grote Kerk, Haarlem with its glowing white interior by Saenredam, a nice Steen of ..."
- Cunard Thanks for finding this. However, it seems to be a fairly short review since the page range given is just one page. Is that what you see? (I don't have access to it.) Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are you sure that the first reference is about this book? It seems strange for a 2001 article to review a 1981 publication. SL93 (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Cunard There is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Caravaggio's Lute Player is not in this book, and Georges de la Tour isn't featured at all. SL93 (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching this mistake. My apologies, that was the wrong source. This is the correct source:
- Hatwell, Don (1981-11-05). "Treasure Trove of Art". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes: "Duccio to Picasso: 100 Great Paintings From The National Gallery, London (4.95 until December 31, then £5.95). The enviable task of browsing through the NG's 2,000 treasures to produce a book of a mere hundred fell to assistant keeper Dillian Gordon. Of course, she's ridiculously wrong about some things. Her choice of four Titians against only one each of Cezanne and Renoir is probably explained by her three-year study period in Italy, dangerous for anyone at any impressionable age. ... But one shouldn't grumble. To let the book fall open at, say, Tiepolo's Venus And Time, ... or Corregio's School of Love is to let the spirit breathe deep. At the price (Coutts Bank have helped keep it down), the book is a treasure in itself." The caption notes: "... Her comments on each picture in 100 Great Paintings From The National Gallery are unfailingly helpful."
- Cunard Thank you. I haven't been able to use Newspapers.com through Wikipedia Library for a while now now because of the current errors per this. Are you using a paid subscription? Not being able to access it, especially for creating articles, has been upsetting. SL93 (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com. Like the user in this comment, I can access Newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library. But I cannot log in to Newspapers.com to clip the article. Cunard (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- It worked for me. Awesome. SL93 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Glad it worked! It would be really painful not to have Newspapers.com access when working on articles as it has so much content that other resources don't have. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- With help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, I've updated the https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ link to a clipping. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Glad it worked! It would be really painful not to have Newspapers.com access when working on articles as it has so much content that other resources don't have. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- It worked for me. Awesome. SL93 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com. Like the user in this comment, I can access Newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library. But I cannot log in to Newspapers.com to clip the article. Cunard (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hatwell, Don (1981-11-05). "Treasure Trove of Art". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.
- Thank you for catching this mistake. My apologies, that was the wrong source. This is the correct source:
- Comment: If this article is kept, and is about the book rather than the list itself, it should probably be renamed to match the book title. From the links above, either Duccio to Picasso or 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The cover of the 1981 edition and MOS:TITLEPUNCT suggest that the article title would be The National Gallery, London: 100 Great Paintings – Duccio to Picasso, but the cover of the 1994 edition suggests it's 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso. I don't know if the title pages had something different from the covers; if they did that could explain the titles in the 1981 reviews of the book. Ham II (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as I think a 1981 book was probably covered in offline sourcing that we haven't yet found. At worst, merge to Dillian Gordon where it makes sense to cover the book with the sourcing that has been identified. I'm a little confused about the redirect not being of value but may have misunderstood what was meant. Star Mississippi 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I've struck my previous "delete" comment above. The Independent and Museums Journal sources found by Cunard look promising and suggest there are others that are difficult to find based on being from the early 1980s. I may have found another, but it is behind a pay wall. The article needs to be rewritten to be about the book, including its reception, rather than just duplicating the contents of the book. Elspea756 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - really as that very rare animal on WP: a fully sourced list that someone might actually want to look at. A rename might be in order, but I can't see we should delete that given the vast number of unsourced lists of all sorts on WP. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete
or MergeI think it is not notable enough to merit its own page, however I noticed the Collection highlights section of National Gallery article is just what appears to be an arbitrary list of works. Would be be better to use Dillian Gordon's list instead? I believe it is notable enough for that. Myotus (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)- That section isn't an arbitrary list; it's a selection of the (some 300 by now) works in the National Gallery with their own articles, largely weighted towards the most famous ones.
We shouldn't give undue prominence to one souvenir guide from 1981, as if that's the only publication that's ever given a condensed list of highlights of the collection. If we really wanted to base National Gallery § Collection highlights on some sort of statistical analysis, there would be lots of books in a similar vein to Dillian Gordon's to take into account, none of them suitable topics for encyclopaedia articles. As I've said, Wikidata is the place to gather that sort of data, and that has already been done for this book at d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Catalog/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso. Because the Commons gallery c:National Gallery, London is also a compilation of highlights, there might be a case for adding all the (out of copyright) works in Gordon's selection to that, and noting in the captions when a painting is in her top 100. Ham II (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- That section isn't an arbitrary list; it's a selection of the (some 300 by now) works in the National Gallery with their own articles, largely weighted towards the most famous ones.
- An addendum to my previous comment. I just realized the lack of artists of color and female artists in Dillian Gordon's list of 100 great paintings in the National Gallery. As it leaves out important painters I don't think it would be a list to include. It appears to be a dated list of its time. Myotus (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- One more thing, I am happy however to see that Dillian Gordon included gay and bisexual men in the list. Points! Myotus (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Phooey! There aren't many "artists of color and female artists" in the NG, which doesn't collect much beyond 1900, and whether any such qualify as "great paintings" is moot. You can be sure Gordon's list ignored silly PC concerns in its selection. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about Mary Cassatt and Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun? However, I suppose you are correct about artists of color. The European painters of the modern movements (Impressionism Cubism, Fauvism and Expressionism) were influenced by African and Asian art. It would be highly unlikely that the National Gallery at that time would want to seek out the actual originals when it had the works by Europeans. I still stand that the book by Dillian Gordon is not notable enough for its own page and not relevant enough to include as a list of artworks on the National Gallery article. Myotus (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- They don't have any Cassatts that I can see - rather late, & not many oils. They would be in the Tate. They have two VlBs, one of top quality but a secondary version (oddly, these are not mentioned in our much longer Collection of the National Gallery, London list). Non-European (indeed Byzantine) art is outside the NG's scope. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- BTW: I just added Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun's Self Portrait in a Straw Hat to the "Collection highlights" section in the Nation Gallery article, doubling the number of women of in the listed 58 artists in the section. Myotus (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about Mary Cassatt and Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun? However, I suppose you are correct about artists of color. The European painters of the modern movements (Impressionism Cubism, Fauvism and Expressionism) were influenced by African and Asian art. It would be highly unlikely that the National Gallery at that time would want to seek out the actual originals when it had the works by Europeans. I still stand that the book by Dillian Gordon is not notable enough for its own page and not relevant enough to include as a list of artworks on the National Gallery article. Myotus (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Phooey! There aren't many "artists of color and female artists" in the NG, which doesn't collect much beyond 1900, and whether any such qualify as "great paintings" is moot. You can be sure Gordon's list ignored silly PC concerns in its selection. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- One more thing, I am happy however to see that Dillian Gordon included gay and bisexual men in the list. Points! Myotus (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- An addendum to my previous comment. I just realized the lack of artists of color and female artists in Dillian Gordon's list of 100 great paintings in the National Gallery. As it leaves out important painters I don't think it would be a list to include. It appears to be a dated list of its time. Myotus (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources found by Cunard seem enough to show this is notable and could be kept. I will note that this article format, nature and content are quite idiosyncratic (list+official works selection+book) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, a good rescue of source discovery. The volume covers important paintings of one of the most important art collections in the world. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Flag of Lord Howe Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreliably sourced and non-notable, some guy made an unofficial flag, the majority of mentions online appear to be citogenesis. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete it's arguably a hoax, and it's non-notable either way. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I can't find a single reliable source for this. fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Seems to be just a flag someone made up one day. Any mentions I found just drew from the Wikipedia page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, an unofficial and fictitious object. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep Not totally sure about this. At first I also thought this might be a hoax, and any the sources I am finding were maybe based on the wikipedia article, but the page history[8] shows that the article is based on an earlier article by the "Flag Society of Australia." And here are some photos of the flag flying in Australia[9], though maybe that's just flown by somebody who fell for a hoax? Elspea756 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Merge with Lord Howe Island, unless we can establish that it truly is a hoax. Can anyone who has been to Lord Howe Island tell whether people there use this flag? I wouldn't use Flag Color Codes or the fact that there are such flags for sale on Amazon as RS in the article, but they do suggest that the flag is in use somewhere. My second choice after merge would be to delete. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This subject is important enough based on the efforts and events that led to the flag creation. It's use wasn't born out of war but was born out of a friendly sporting competition between two neighbouring islands. What an interesting and notable story in the overall history of this region. I imagine that similar histories of flags creation have been lost for much larger places than this pacific island. I don't think an unofficial flag can be considered a hoax without evidence.
Flag history order of events:-
- -someone has created a new flag design
- -the design was made into a flag
- -someone has travelled with the flag to a neighbouring island for a sports competition
- -flag was raised up the flagpole for the duration of the sports competition Rockycape (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. While this doesn't appear to be a hoax, the coverage is so scarce that it fails WP:GNG. The article is sourced to a single website and a quick search did not find any other usable sources. Astaire (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge This article should not be deleted but rather merged into the article about the Island itself. 1.127.111.182 (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources do not support this as a standalone encyclopedic topic. Whether it should be mentioned in Lord Howe Island is an editorial decision for those with knowledge about that area; the Lord Howe Island article is pretty well-developed and the editors has not yet found the flag worthy of mention. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Sinfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I initially wanted to wait until either the webcomic concluded, or the most recent source is 10+ years old, but returning talkpage concerns made me decide to start this early. My argument for deletion is WP:SUSTAINED combined with a shift in subject matter of the work covered. The most recent source, a 2016 list entry by Paste, states that it had "recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism," and this is the most up-to-date information we can cite on this webcomic. Sean Kleefield in his 2020 book Webcomics did mention Sinfest as an example, but in his blog he made clear he did not do any research for this. As editors, we have recently tried to expand on Ishida's/Sinfest's recent political and controversial aspects through primary sources, but this got (probably rightfully?) undone. Reliable sources are staying away from Sinfest and we don't know how to cover it anymore: the article is largely about a Sinfest that no longer exists, or only exists buried in its own archives. Typically when sources on a long-running webcomic dry up, it just means it's no longer in the zeitgeist, but I don't think that really applies here: I would perhaps make the vain suggestion that reliable sources don't "want" to consider this work notable. I would like to hear what other editors think of this argument and issue. Note that "this webcomic is bad/harmful" is not a deletion rationale tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Webcomics. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. SUSTAINED applies to brief bursts of newspaper coverage: the coverage already in this article passes sustained, with consistent coverage over a period of multiple years. Per WP:NTEMP once something is notable, it is notable for good, and even though the coverage has ceased the past coverage is well, well over sustained. The past Sinfest is the notable sinfest, we do not need to discuss the current one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. In my opinion, the discrepancy between what Sinfest was in the 2000s and what it is now is so jarring that it has become an entirely different entity, functionally separate from what it was once was. I think we can all agree that reliable sources have not given meaningful coverage to the very disturbing turn the comic has taken over the past few years.
- Ordinarily, it's completely fine for an article on a comic to lay stagnant if reliably sourced coverage dries up. However, in this case, we're left with an article that discusses the generally favorable coverage Sinfest received in the past, says nothing about its current iteration, and maintains a link to the website. Together, these facts mean that this page functions as a puff piece on a work of antisemitic propaganda, which it then directly links to.
- I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this was the intent of any editor here; I know that Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and I have not gotten any impression of fellow editors here other than that they are committed to following Wikipedia's procedures and improving the site's coverage of this comic. I do think that, in this case, we might have to be a bit flexible in the application of policy. "Notability is not temporary" is certainly a good guideline in general, but in this case, we have been left with no way to talk honestly about something that it would be harmful to talk about dishonestly. For that reason, I think deletion is the best option.
- I'll be honest here, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and I'm not thoroughly familiar with the site's policies or precedents on issues like this. I feel about this similarly to the way I do when I hear about US Supreme Court rulings, which is that I have a strong moral conviction about what is right, but I don't know much about actual legal procedure. (I've made a couple comments on the Sinfest talk page about policy in the past, and later realized that I was mistaken about how the relevant policy actually worked, which is why I haven't posted there since.) For that reason, I chose to comment rather than explicitly support deletion. My position is based not on specific Wikipedia policy but on my moral conviction that Wikipedia should not be covering antisemitic propaganda without explicitly labeling it as such.Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, meets GNG and has numerous sustained sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would argue that the sources are not sustained, as it's impossible to update the article since 2011 or so due to a lack of sources. 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- STRONG Delete, fails WP:GNG as sources either do not provide significant coverage or are not independent of the subject. Nominator Maplestrip/Mable and comment by Wehpudicabok are correct that this also fails WP:SUSTAINED as the only potentially reliable sources I see here, like Publishers Weekly, only provide coverage during a relatively brief time period, and the lack of sources means this fails WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with several poorly sourced claims about a living person's "perspectives" on "American politics, organized religion, and radical feminism."
- Source assessment: Here is a a source assessment table showing the first 10 out of 11 sources in the article. The 11th source[10] is another example of insignificant coverage, with just two sentences on this topic in a listicle of 29 other items. Elspea756 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Lack of credible sources sillygirly97 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Elspea756 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- As nominator I cannot stand by this source assessment. I would consider many of these sources perfectly usable, notably the Publisher's Weekly articles, the paragraphs in Wired and Paste, and the WCCA, had Sinfest simply left the zeitgeist. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have to agree. Many of these sources are usable. I had a similar discussion years ago with a table like this (which was also faulty) and it only led to issues. Historyday01 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- As nominator I cannot stand by this source assessment. I would consider many of these sources perfectly usable, notably the Publisher's Weekly articles, the paragraphs in Wired and Paste, and the WCCA, had Sinfest simply left the zeitgeist. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There's book coverage from 2013 [11] and 2020 [12]. I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Could you really start an article about a webcomic with that little? The 2013 source is nothing, just sinfest's name used once as an example alongside another comic.
- The 2020 book is sourced entirely from Reddit posts, which are themselves unusable. 05:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are we looking at the same source??? The 2013 work contains several pages of actual analyses of Sinfest's panel usage and formatting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Then write an article solely about Sinfest's panel usage and formatting, because that's all there's sources for. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- What else would they write about? Plot recaps? In your eyes, what would count here?
- Fictional works are typically notable based on outside reception of them. Analyses of a comic like this is a very strong sign it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it's notable, then why is there no outside reception of it that we can use to keep it updated? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is, in the books?
- By your logic, it is against the rules to make an article on any comic until it is over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- One book. The 2020 book is just a collation of Reddit threads that do not count as sources. If only one book, and a fairly technical one at that, mentions something... it's probably not notable. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Any webcomic being mentioned in a "fairly technical" book is an accomplishment in my reading, especially with several pages of coverage. The other book shows Sinfest being taken of note - it is not cited to Reddit threads other than to say that the comic's change in tone was controversial on the internet. Where else would he have gotten information on it being controversial on the internet?
- Publishers Weekly + Wired + Paste clear our threshold for reliability and SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- One book. The 2020 book is just a collation of Reddit threads that do not count as sources. If only one book, and a fairly technical one at that, mentions something... it's probably not notable. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it's notable, then why is there no outside reception of it that we can use to keep it updated? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Then write an article solely about Sinfest's panel usage and formatting, because that's all there's sources for. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, it's not sourced entirely from Reddit posts, it is citing Reddit posts to say there was a lot of online controversy over this. What else would you cite???? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Iunno man, I only get involved in Wikipedia a few times a year. Try finding a source for the changes to Sinfest over time on your own time. Maybe discuss that with the people who watch for changes to the Sinfest page. Lot of productive things you could do if you want to save this page. Maybe find a newspaper to publish an article about Sinfest. In the mean time, my vote remains delete due to no WP:Sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- You have no rebuttal to WP:NTEMP. Also you canvassed this discussion in your own favor which is very against our policy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fight the argument, not the one making it. And you have no rebuttal to WP:Sustained 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Typically, the decision between whether NTEMP overrules SUSTAINED or vice-versa depends on how short-term the sources were; say a week versus a few years. I recognize that my argument is a very atypical application of SUSTAINED that almost goes into WP:IAR territory. Regardless, I want to note that I agree with PARAKANYAA that the 2020 is a fine source, but willalso say that because Sinfest is merely an example of something that can happen with a webcomic, without much depth, it is not particularly useful for an encyclopedic article about Sinfest itself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- My rebuttal to sustained is that sustained does not mean "sources must exist that cover every appreciable moment of something", it means "it making the news for two days and then never again". Coverage over years is sustained by definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fight the argument, not the one making it. And you have no rebuttal to WP:Sustained 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- You have no rebuttal to WP:NTEMP. Also you canvassed this discussion in your own favor which is very against our policy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Iunno man, I only get involved in Wikipedia a few times a year. Try finding a source for the changes to Sinfest over time on your own time. Maybe discuss that with the people who watch for changes to the Sinfest page. Lot of productive things you could do if you want to save this page. Maybe find a newspaper to publish an article about Sinfest. In the mean time, my vote remains delete due to no WP:Sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are we looking at the same source??? The 2013 work contains several pages of actual analyses of Sinfest's panel usage and formatting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Keep it seeing that we already have one wikipedia page for Stonetoss. Why not keep Sinfest as a page?96.241.99.133 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's a huge difference between the Stonetoss and Sinfest pages, though, which kind of illustrates my point. The Stonetoss page immediately identifies it as a neo-Nazi webcomic right from the first sentence, and the claim has several citations to reliable sources. If similar reliable sources existed to identify Sinfest that way, we would simply add them, and then I would vote to keep. We cannot do that, because as far as I can tell, reliable sources do not cover Sinfest and haven't for many years. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, Sinfest very much lacks WP:Sustained if you can't even source such a large and obvious part of the comic. Has anyone here read the recent articles? It's openly anti-semitic and not trying to hide it. It would practically make Jack Chick say 'that's a bit much' 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)~~ 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just because one aspect isn't covered doesn't mean it fails sustained.
- Also, sustained doesn't even apply to the comic as a whole, it applies to events. If the owner had made one very controversial comic that would be an Event and need sustained coverage, but the reasons Sinfest is notable aren't related to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- If Sinfest had sustained notoriety it would be possible to keep the article up to date. It is not possible to keep the article up to date. Therefore Sinfest does not have sustained notoriety.
- If A then B, not B. Therefore not A. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read WP:NTEMP. Once something is notable it is notable for good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read WP:Sustained If something was 'notable' for a very short period of time and isn't afterwards, it probably was never notable. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The coverage in this article is for over a decade!
- If this is what WP:SUSTAINED means, 99% of articles on a fictional work fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it has coverage over several years, it is still notable, even if the coverage ends. That is what WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP mean. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article currently contains many statements about sinfest's early political leanings who's sources would not be accepted in the modern Wikipedia... I have a low opinion on the sourcing of this article. At least an article about the layout and formatting would be sourced correctly. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- 'Clean up' is not possible. Because it wasn't actually notable in the first place. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read WP:Sustained If something was 'notable' for a very short period of time and isn't afterwards, it probably was never notable. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read WP:NTEMP. Once something is notable it is notable for good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, Sinfest very much lacks WP:Sustained if you can't even source such a large and obvious part of the comic. Has anyone here read the recent articles? It's openly anti-semitic and not trying to hide it. It would practically make Jack Chick say 'that's a bit much' 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)~~ 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's a huge difference between the Stonetoss and Sinfest pages, though, which kind of illustrates my point. The Stonetoss page immediately identifies it as a neo-Nazi webcomic right from the first sentence, and the claim has several citations to reliable sources. If similar reliable sources existed to identify Sinfest that way, we would simply add them, and then I would vote to keep. We cannot do that, because as far as I can tell, reliable sources do not cover Sinfest and haven't for many years. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per source assessment. Felicia (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. I would be wary of the source assessment based on what is stated on the template page: "The use of this template does not imply a final or consensus view of how any given source should be assessed. Though it may be used to summarize a developing consensus, it may also reflect the assessments of a single editor in the course of a discussion." It seems to do the latter rather than the former. Just thought I'd make that one point here. Historyday01 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep there are two competing arguments happening in this thread and I think it's confusing the issue a lot. Argument 1 - The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit. Argument 2. The comic has never had significant older coverage. That would be a reason to delete, but I am personally a (weakish) Keep on this front. There are a variety of sources, even if the coverage isn't particularly "deep", and it appears to have held at least a minor cachet in the early 2010s webcomic scene. That said, the self-promotion citations (site news and patreon link) should probably be taken out. (aside, I am leery of the "source assessment" table, as it strikes me as a means to paint "objectivity" on the various sources by applying fancy formatting. is this a new thing to wikipedia? I've never seen it before.) Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- With regard to the comment that "The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit.", editors have done so. Other editors have then removed those edits, because they were not reliably sourced. This is what we've been discussing. There's no way to talk honestly about what the comic is now, because no reliable sources have covered the change. And this is a particularly disturbing change to omit, because the comic has veered into explicitly antisemitic propaganda. If you have coverage of the change from reliable sources, by all means, add them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't plan to edit the page, no, but it sounds like AfD is not the venue for this discussion then? I'm pretty firmly opposed to "we should delete it because an edit war is preventing the article from being corrected". Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm saying and it's not what happened. Some editors made good-faith edits to cover the change, then others pointed out that the changes have to be reliably sourced, and the sources that had been used didn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there simply aren't any reliable sources that have covered the change. It's not an edit war; there's just no way to make it better unless reliable sources start covering this topic, which they are unlikely to do. And finally (this is my own opinion, not Wikipedia policy), it is unethical to cover antisemitic propaganda without calling it that. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I am sorry to have mischaracterized your statements, I do not mean any ill will here. I agree that it is unfortunate that the article does not (and cannot?) cover the comic's turn into antisemitism and transphobia - things I too find reprehensible - but speaking purely from the perspective of article deletion, my understanding of the policy is simply that articles are not to be deleted for reasons like this. Hornpipe2 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. To be honest, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policy as I'd like to be, which is why I keep emphasizing that some of what I'm saying is not based on that policy. If this were an ordinary webcomic, I'd be fine just leaving it as it was years ago; and if this were a culturally prominent piece of far-right propaganda, I'd be editing the article to reflect that. It's only because it's in the specific overlap of "gray area of notability" and "far-right propaganda" that we have this problem. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I am sorry to have mischaracterized your statements, I do not mean any ill will here. I agree that it is unfortunate that the article does not (and cannot?) cover the comic's turn into antisemitism and transphobia - things I too find reprehensible - but speaking purely from the perspective of article deletion, my understanding of the policy is simply that articles are not to be deleted for reasons like this. Hornpipe2 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm saying and it's not what happened. Some editors made good-faith edits to cover the change, then others pointed out that the changes have to be reliably sourced, and the sources that had been used didn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there simply aren't any reliable sources that have covered the change. It's not an edit war; there's just no way to make it better unless reliable sources start covering this topic, which they are unlikely to do. And finally (this is my own opinion, not Wikipedia policy), it is unethical to cover antisemitic propaganda without calling it that. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't plan to edit the page, no, but it sounds like AfD is not the venue for this discussion then? I'm pretty firmly opposed to "we should delete it because an edit war is preventing the article from being corrected". Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- With regard to the comment that "The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit.", editors have done so. Other editors have then removed those edits, because they were not reliably sourced. This is what we've been discussing. There's no way to talk honestly about what the comic is now, because no reliable sources have covered the change. And this is a particularly disturbing change to omit, because the comic has veered into explicitly antisemitic propaganda. If you have coverage of the change from reliable sources, by all means, add them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per source assessment 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion on the sources presented by Oaktree b? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sufficient. Could you start an article with just those? I don't think so. 05:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk)
- They are both SIGCOV. And yes you could? Good enough for GNG, in combination with the earlier stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- All the 2013 book seems to prove is that Sinfest exists. I could write an article about it if you'd like using that source. Ahem "Sinfest is a webcomic".
- In the old days you could get GNG with more original research than Wikipedia is willing to tolerate in the modern era. I helped clean up a lot of original research FROM the GNG article, including a list of characters. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The 2013 source has plenty of analytical coverage of Sinfest. What are you even talking about? It's multiple pages discussing and analyzing a comic from it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- And? It's really, honestly, not enough. Wikipedia has far too many pages about non-notable webcomics that popped up during a brief span of time in the 90's-00's when webcomics were 'hot'. It was a fad, and Wikipedia would be better if many of these irrelevant articles were removed. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well if you want to do a mass AfD and propose they all be deleted, press your luck, but this clears the standards we have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It cleared the standards we *had* in 2000. It does not clear the standards for 2020.
- I think a reassessment, and deletion, is in order.
- 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It clears the standards we currently have now, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well if you want to do a mass AfD and propose they all be deleted, press your luck, but this clears the standards we have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- And? It's really, honestly, not enough. Wikipedia has far too many pages about non-notable webcomics that popped up during a brief span of time in the 90's-00's when webcomics were 'hot'. It was a fad, and Wikipedia would be better if many of these irrelevant articles were removed. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The 2013 source has plenty of analytical coverage of Sinfest. What are you even talking about? It's multiple pages discussing and analyzing a comic from it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sufficient. Could you start an article with just those? I don't think so. 05:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk)
- Opinion on the sources presented by Oaktree b? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete since the article no longer reflects what Sinfest has become, and editorial policies restricting its update to reflect this seismic shift. Ssteedman (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not a deletion rationale. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It could be counted as Lack of WP:Sustained. Which is reason to delete. Sinfest is not notable, and has not been for ten years. 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is a reason for events. If Ishida had made one extremely controversial comic 10 years ago and it wasn't mentioned before or since, that would be a sustained issue. This is a comic strip. The coverage is already over multiple years - just because something isn't covered anymore does not make it non notable. Read WP:NTEMP
- Plenty of notable TV shows or series have less coverage as they go along. We do not delete a notable work because its later versions have less coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's 'way less coverage' and there is 'completely a non entity among major publications'. And I'm not joking about that, have you read any of the recent strips? If we can't find a source for that extreme of an event, it was probably never an important thing in the first place.
- It's like, you've got two football players. A major league one and a elementary school league one. Both get a wikipedia article because they're mentioned in a newspaper. Years go by without their pages being updated. Both of them suddenly say something racist. The major league football player is covered in a national newspaper and his page is updated to include the controversy. The elementary school one isn't, and his page isn't. Do we really need a page for the elementary kid who grew into an adult that no one official cares about? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Notability is not based on how popular something is, it's based on if it is covered in reliable secondary sources.
- Your example is false because local coverage is typically given less weight in notability. Sinfest has coverage in Publishers Weekly, a respected national publication, and several books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. Let's say they get an article in the same national newspaper and are even listed alongside each other. One goes on to have sustained notability. The other does not.
- Sinfest does not have sustained notability. You've got a single book from 2013, and a few low quality secondary sources. The book from 2020 is unresearched per the author of that book's blog, and is largely just a citation of some uncitable Reddit threads. You do not have notibility.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- If there are two football players, one of who goes on to be a household name, and one of whom is successful but less famous, and they both have continued coverage in newspapers, yes, they should both have articles. We do not only have articles on famous things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- But that's the thing. One doesn't have continued coverage and one does.
- You said it in your own words.
- and they both have continued coverage in newspapers,
- Sinfest lacks continued coverage.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was covered for over a decade!! PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Covered for over a decade, sure, but the article in no way reflects what Sinfest is now.
- Anyone reading Sinfest the Wiki article and Sinfest the webcomic would think they had landed up at another site with a similar name.
- If Wikipedia strives for accuracy, it lacks it in describing this.
- Ssteedman (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was covered for over a decade!! PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- If there are two football players, one of who goes on to be a household name, and one of whom is successful but less famous, and they both have continued coverage in newspapers, yes, they should both have articles. We do not only have articles on famous things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It could be counted as Lack of WP:Sustained. Which is reason to delete. Sinfest is not notable, and has not been for ten years. 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not a deletion rationale. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note to closer: There is significant onwiki canvassing going on. Special:Contributions/2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 has violated WP:CANVASS by notifying the following editors, whom 2601...403 expects to !vote delete: Kontakr, Daveosaurus, DontKnowWhyIBother, BurningLibrary, PrincessPandaWiki, Jellyfish. Please take this into account when closing this AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note that there's also a push from a Reddit post encouraging people to brigade for a "delete" vote. https://www.reddit.com/r/sinfest/comments/1ecf5ki/sinfest_article_up_for_deletion_on_wikipedia/ Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please add @Historyday01: to the list of users that were possibly inappropriately notified (WP:CANVASS) of this AFD. Diff. Timestamps indicate that Historyday01 received the user talk notification first and then !voted in this AFD second. I have blocked 2601:447:C801:3AD0/64 for a week for canvassing after being previously warned about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good idea. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. After a recent bad experience with an AfD, I am generally cautious to participate these days, but I saw this discussion as an exception. And I actually would have even voted delete myself, but its my personal view to vote "keep" (even weak keep) or "redirect" whenever possible. So, if that user was trying to get me to vote delete... that did NOT work. Historyday01 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't care enough about the article to !vote either way. However notability is not temporary, and Sinfest is far from the only comic that became extremist late in its run.Daveosaurus (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The difference is that Cerebere's changes can be sourced. And I think that pretty clearly shows the difference between an actually notable, sustained notability, for a comic and... well... this. Which is not sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- How long does the coverage have to be for you to consider it sustained? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that depends on what happens in the comic. Has to be enough coverage to keep any major tonal shifts in the comic over the course of it's life updated. If you can't manage that, it's not actually notable.
- If official people care about the comic, they will write official things when the comic makes major changes. Like people did with Cerebrus. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is contrary to WP:NTEMP, so no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is, however, WP:Sustained
- Wikipedia has a lot of 'contradictory' rules that are intended to be balanced against each other. WP:NTEMP must be balanced against WP:Sustained and this falls on the side of not being notable.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- NTEMP and SUSTAINED are not contradictory. Sustained means that it must have more than a single-event burst of news coverage to be notable, while NTEMP means that once it has cleared that bar it is forever notable. None of the coverage is the "single-event" burst of notable that SUSTAINED applies to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- You have One. Book.
- That sounds like a single burst to me. The great webcomics fad of the 00's.
- 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The other book is fine. The source analysis is incorrect, the Publishers Weekly source is not a "press release" and is fine, the Wired and Paste sources are enough to be SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- NTEMP and SUSTAINED are not contradictory. Sustained means that it must have more than a single-event burst of news coverage to be notable, while NTEMP means that once it has cleared that bar it is forever notable. None of the coverage is the "single-event" burst of notable that SUSTAINED applies to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is contrary to WP:NTEMP, so no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- How long does the coverage have to be for you to consider it sustained? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The difference is that Cerebere's changes can be sourced. And I think that pretty clearly shows the difference between an actually notable, sustained notability, for a comic and... well... this. Which is not sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like this deletion discussion has seen enough arguments between 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 and PARAKANYAA; I'm afraid that you two may continue talking in circles around eachother until one decides to stop responding. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment A possible solution: what is wrong with Sean Kleefeld's 2024 "On Tatsuya Ishida" post as a source for citations in the article (as previously mentioned above)? The author has written an (already cited!) book on comics, is seemingly something of an authority or expert in the subject matter, etc. I guess that blog publishing is self-publishing, but, this isn't self-promoting - more of an "addendum" or errata to the book, in my mind. If this was permitted it seems it'd let the article be further edited towards "correctness" and this discussion could be put to rest. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am reading further about Wikipedia's allowable use of self-published sources and I now believe this self-published article by this expert author meets the criteria for usage except it runs afoul of Biography of Living Person: Avoid self-published sources - you cannot use a self-published third-party source to support a claim about a living individual. I'm not sure if it would be possible to carefully select parts of this that cover specifically the comic itself and not the artist, but the title doesn't give much hope :P
- That said, I encourage people to read the guidelines on self-published sources and especially cases where the subject is writing about themself: it seems likely to me that a handful of posts from the author on their site would suffice to meet both the goals of documenting the current artist's viewpoints while remaining on the right side of the allowable sources discussion. The reverted version (see first post in this thread) cites some Patreon posts and other items from the author themselves: perhaps there's some usable gems in there. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- You can't use Kleefeld's post to say anything about Ishida's descent into conspiracy theories and antisemitism, but it should be fine to use it to say that the comic has changed and no longer connects to its once large fanbase. —Kusma (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete while I'm not usually in favor of reading WP:SUSTAINED in such a strict manner (especially for stuff like media or events, which often only have a few bursts of coverage), it's necessary here to avoid having a page that totally misrepresents its subject. If this strip were truly notable, there'd be at least one or two sources commenting on its current nature. The fact that there isn't indicates the page should be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- People are no longer posting regular updates about Badgers (animation), do you suggest that to be removed as well? I am really having a hard time understanding this retroactive hyper-scrutiny applied to a webcomic which was literally written about in book(s) as the best solution to an out-of-date overview. It's flatly the wrong tool to resolve the issue. Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hornpipe2: Badgers (animation) is not still being published. Again, this is a rather weird case as this almost never happens with media. But having this article as-is is not really in line with our fundamental policies. Ideally, some reliable source would cover this comic strip's transformation and we could keep the article, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does I'll switch to keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- People are no longer posting regular updates about Badgers (animation), do you suggest that to be removed as well? I am really having a hard time understanding this retroactive hyper-scrutiny applied to a webcomic which was literally written about in book(s) as the best solution to an out-of-date overview. It's flatly the wrong tool to resolve the issue. Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Notability isn't temporary and the book sources combined with the smaller mentions in other sources add up to GNG. Most of these deletion votes are motivated by a dislike of the comic/comic author. WP:SUSTAINED does not mean continuous coverage all the time, just that coverage is not for one event/a few weeks. Sinfest has attracted coverage over multiple years. The canvassing needs to be noted too. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Traumnovelle you're one of the proponents on the Sinfest talkpage of, well, not updating it with any new information because you don't feel that the sources meet Wikipedia standards. The standards that you're holding new sources too is, in fact, so tight that I honestly don't believe that the older sources hold up to those standards.
- It cannot be updated, and it should not have existed in the first place... which is honestly reasonable, it's just a minor webcomic, no real direct links from other Wikipedia articles to it. Documenting it would be like documenting every single fast food chain in the USA that ever showed up in a local newspaper... not something that Wikipedia is intended for.
- What I want to ask is: Why do the early articles on irrelevant sources get a pass in your mind, but the 2024 kleefield blog post and the newsletter article don't? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, this was a major webcomic 10 years ago that is now obscure, but did have some nontrivial coverage outside of the innermost webcomics bubble. Sure, it is not Dilbert, but it was, as RationalWiki says, "one of the most popular webcomics on the Internet". Notability is not temporary, and there is nontrivial coverage of Sinfest back when it was a popular webcomic on Google Scholar. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- "This was a major webcomic 10 years ago". Original research, also all webcomics were more in the limelight back then, there was a fad for them. 'Rationalwiki says' not a good source. Google Scholar. Not a good source. Bloomsburry studies: Mentions sinfest as an example, but that alone is not enough to make Sinfest notable. Regardless of if you like or dislike the comic, wikipedia is not the place for non-notible articles that cannot be improved. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- That it was a major webcomic 10 years ago is evident from its use as an example in various publications, not just from the non-RS Rationalwiki. There do not seem to be any sources for the last ten years, but that may be for the best. We can just say "As of 2014" to clarify we have no newer information. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have subject matter expert Sean Kleefeld who can be cited to say that the comic has changed, possibly alienating its old audience. —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- There was a previous attempt to include that information. It was removed because, according to the person who removed it, it wasn't a usable source. The fact of the matter is that the article cannot be updated and cannot be improved. So far no sources have been sufficiently legitimate to overcome the inertia of the folks who don't want to improve nor modernize the page. The page should be taken down. Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have subject matter expert Sean Kleefeld who can be cited to say that the comic has changed, possibly alienating its old audience. —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- That it was a major webcomic 10 years ago is evident from its use as an example in various publications, not just from the non-RS Rationalwiki. There do not seem to be any sources for the last ten years, but that may be for the best. We can just say "As of 2014" to clarify we have no newer information. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- "This was a major webcomic 10 years ago". Original research, also all webcomics were more in the limelight back then, there was a fad for them. 'Rationalwiki says' not a good source. Google Scholar. Not a good source. Bloomsburry studies: Mentions sinfest as an example, but that alone is not enough to make Sinfest notable. Regardless of if you like or dislike the comic, wikipedia is not the place for non-notible articles that cannot be improved. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong delete 'Rational wiki' is not a valid source. We don't need a separate page for every comic that ever made it onto a top ten list somewhere. This is not a notable subject Le Blue Dude (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I want to clarify my position a bit: The matters spoken of in this article are unverifiable. The sources are bad. Worse the article is riddled with original research, such as claiming that the 2008 shift in the comic was due to 'uncertainty and stress about the financial meltdown' which is NOT a quote from the purported source of that edit. This is a poor article that's not verifiable and made almost entirely from original research. I do not recommend retaining this article.Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, lastly, according to the deletion process, deletion is for articles that cannot be improved. This article cannot be improved. There are no reasonable sources for current events, and the sources for prior events are not sufficient. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and full disclosure, I'm here because I saw the post in reddit. And yes, this article has needed to go for a long while. The deletion section says that articles that are 'unimprovable' should be deleted, and the past few years of people editing new information into the article only to have it removed due to a lack of verifiability is proof that it's unimprovable. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- >Oh, lastly, according to the deletion process, deletion is for articles that cannot be improved.
- That isn't what WP:DEL-REASON states. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, lastly, according to the deletion process, deletion is for articles that cannot be improved. This article cannot be improved. There are no reasonable sources for current events, and the sources for prior events are not sufficient. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I want to clarify my position a bit: The matters spoken of in this article are unverifiable. The sources are bad. Worse the article is riddled with original research, such as claiming that the 2008 shift in the comic was due to 'uncertainty and stress about the financial meltdown' which is NOT a quote from the purported source of that edit. This is a poor article that's not verifiable and made almost entirely from original research. I do not recommend retaining this article.Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment As a side note, I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that there's a direct link to sinfest on the wiki page. There should not be a direct link to openly antisemitic works on a wikipedia page, and sinfest is openly antisemitic. Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED. What's the point in removing the link when I can type sinfest into google and it comes up as the first result any how? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, having the link improves Sinfest's standing in online search engine results. I know Sinfest comes up as the top result on a search for "sinfest," but I'm not thrilled with the idea of putting it higher in the results for terms also mentioned on its Wikipedia article, like "webcomic."I also don't like the idea that any random person perusing Wikipedia could find themselves on a site that promotes hate speech with no warning. Finally, just because Wikipedia is not censored does not mean a link is required. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)- The link doesn't improve their standing in search results because we use nofollow. There is almost never a reason to avoid linking to a website in an article on that website. We link to Stormfront; we can link to this. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't know that. Okay, I retract that portion of my comment, then. Thank you for the correction. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- The link doesn't improve their standing in search results because we use nofollow. There is almost never a reason to avoid linking to a website in an article on that website. We link to Stormfront; we can link to this. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED. What's the point in removing the link when I can type sinfest into google and it comes up as the first result any how? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I've already commented a lot on this AFD so I won't dwell here, but I do think that, even though this isn't a vote, I should make it clear that I favor deletion. Until reliable sources exist that can cover what Sinfest is now, the article as it exists is fundamentally inaccurate, and we have no way to make it accurate that's within Wikipedia policy. I would argue this falls under reason #7 to delete an article that's listed at WP:DEL-REASON: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." While some reliable sources documented what Sinfest was circa 2008, no such sources exist for what it is now, and the coverage even then was sparse at best. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- The criteria in del-reason refers to things that cannot be verified to actually exist or contain no reliable sources at all. The article contains multiple reliable sources and someone posted two quality sources that can be used in this AfD. We don't need to be able to verify every detail/constant coverage or else we would have to delete Valerius Flaccus (poet) because it's impossible to verify anything about his life beyond his death. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you're going to reply to me, you could at least respond to the crux of what I'm saying. I will reiterate what I said above: "the article as it exists is fundamentally inaccurate, and we have no way to make it accurate that's within Wikipedia policy." I'm not talking about "every detail" or "constant coverage"; I don't demand that the article cover how Slick is no longer a main character. I'm talking about the fact that it's now an antisemitic hate site, which is an enormous change that this article completely ignores. Wikipedia should not lie to its readers. As it stands now, that's exactly what it's doing. Wehpudicabok (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The criteria in del-reason refers to things that cannot be verified to actually exist or contain no reliable sources at all. The article contains multiple reliable sources and someone posted two quality sources that can be used in this AfD. We don't need to be able to verify every detail/constant coverage or else we would have to delete Valerius Flaccus (poet) because it's impossible to verify anything about his life beyond his death. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. There are a fair number of what I would call bad rationales here, both to keep ("because we have an article about stone toss") and to delete ("it started to suck really bad between now and the last RS coverage"). For the record, and to put more specificity on what "suck really bad" means, I just went to the website and read through the last couple months of strips. While the art style is certainly better than it was some decade ago when I last heard of this comic, but I cannot help but notice, well: the current series is called "Into The Rabbi Hole" and the latest strip features two roosters representing Christianity and Islam being forced to fight for entertainment by a crowd of jeering Jews. If you go look at a random strip from the last year, it is just more of the same variety of rancid dog shit. The guy seems to have gone completely off the beam in this regard. Well, okay: this is dumb and bad, but I don't think it is an issue that makes sense to resolve by deleting the article. jp×g🗯️ 12:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The problem isn't the 'sucking' so much as the fact that we can't get any coverage of the shift into open antisemitism. Right now we've got an article about an anti-semitic website that doesn't explain what it is, and includes a direct link without any warnings to the antisemitic website.
- Admittedly Traumnovelle isn't exactly helping. You can see from the article's talk page that this user will only accept the strictest rationelle for 'support'... so strict, in fact, that under Traumnovelle's standards the current article should not have been made. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Basically what I'm trying to say is: The article is not accurate. The article cannot be made accurate. Deletion is better than having an inaccurate article that is impossible to fix. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I may end up needing to revise my vote here.
- I am trying to look this up and I'm going nuts.
- Has nobody said a word about this in any usable source whatsoever?
- Like, there's nothing at all. No news sites, no magazines, no industry blogs, no blogs of any kind: it's literally just discussion threads on forums and reddit and TVTropes and the Bad Webcomics wiki. I can't think of the last time I saw something like this. What? I feel like it is basically every other day you see a bold accusation that this or that public figure has some kind of secret right-wing sympathies -- social media posters and tabloid sites love connecting the dots on some infinitesimal freeze-frame detail in a video or an obscure flag in the background of a political rally. But somehow, nobody gives a hoot if one of the most widely-read webcomics of the 2000s pivots into [sinfest.xyz/view.php?date=2024-05-26 strips about how Hitler was based]?
- Wild!
- For what it's worth, even the hater websites do not seem to give a crap about this -- the RationalWiki article does not see fit to even mention it until after a rambling diatribe about him wanting porno to be illegal and thinking the COVID vaccine is a conspiracy and being a second-wave feminist instead of a third-wave feminist (all of which are given more attention and mentioned before the Nazi stuff). I guess maybe I am completely alone in thinking that "saying Adolf Hitler was the good guy" is a notably or unusually bad thing to do, and in reality, it's about on the same level of badness as "using the term 'cuck'".
- Like, am I losing my marbles? Isn't being a Nazi a pretty big deal? jp×g🗯️ 14:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is normally a pretty big deal. You know. If the subject is actually notable. This is the exact point I've been trying to make. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I very much appreciate this comment, @JPxG:, as it affirms that this atypical deletion discussion has a real basis to it. It feels like an absurd situation and at least this gets that across. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I've already voted but: Right from the deletion article "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is where we're sitting right now. You can see many attempts to find more sources in the talk page, and furthermore I've repeatedly turned to the Sinfest Reddit to attempt to find more sources, asking redditers to scrape together any sources they can find.
Further This article heavily fails WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. It is simply not an accurate representation of the subject. According to WP:COMPOUTCOMES 'flash animations are typically deleted unless extremely well known'. Generalising that to webcomics... I feel that sinfest is simply not extremely well known, and that deletion is the correct step. If it was well known, it would have more sources than a handful of bylines in weak media. The 'book' everyone cites doesn't seem to even directly speak about sinfest, it just uses sinfest as an example of a type of webcomic style... alongside other webcomics also used as an example of that style. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- You have made 32 comments at this AfD so far; I think if you can't manage to get the point across in 31 comments, the 32nd is unlikely to be helpful. jp×g🗯️ 14:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I'd say there is marginal support for keeping this page, per the existing sources, and the discussion here. I think others are more qualified to speak on that than me. Surely there are some unreliable sources, I won't dispute. I also feel that some IP addresses (like 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403|2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 which has more than 25 comments) are spamming their comments here to make their point in favor of deletion, which the closer should keep in mind. I think it is better to keep the page for the time being and work on it to improve it rather than deleting it outright. I can't think of anything this page would be redirected to, so at this point the only logical thing to do is to support a "weak keep."--Historyday01 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm sorry I'm neuro-divergent and have a tendency to over share and talk to much. That being said, I do want to communicate, and I think it does help 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are also continuing to canvass users (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Historyday01&oldid=1237166343) despite being IP blocked already - which is strictly against the rules. Knock it off. Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's not really cool. It's not improving their case either. Historyday01 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are also continuing to canvass users (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Historyday01&oldid=1237166343) despite being IP blocked already - which is strictly against the rules. Knock it off. Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- You really don't understand the links you're referencing. Encyclopaedic says 'Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.' which goes against what you wish for, unverifiable information to be included. The article complies with encyclopaedic because it represents a summary of what the reliable sources state.
- WP:OUTCOMES just provides an overview of how AfDs usually turn out: it is not a policy nor a guideline and will not be considered by the closer. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSUSTAINED are clearly met by the two books mentioned above, as well as this brief 2009 review in Library Journal and this substantial 2012 review in The Comics Journal. It's not ideal that there's no more recent coverage of the comic, but that's not a reason to delete the article entirely; if the 2024 Kleefeld blog post mentioned above can't be used as a source, maybe it could instead be added as an external link. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per source assessment. The assessment isn't claiming the Wired, Publishers Weekly or Paste are unreliable. It shows these were passing mentions or press releases. The comic came and went and now seems to exist solely as a topic on user-generated sites. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Idea for how to mention/cite recent changes to the comic strip
So, basically, the central deal of it here seems to be that there is a big dispute over what to do about the fashening (for lack of a better word). The conflict here is that the article ends up being utterly ridiculous if we do not mention the fashening, but the sources we have are pretty patchy, and we cannot just claim in the voice of the encyclopedia that people have certain views, even when they obviously are. This is, of course, a good policy to have, but it does present us with a strange challenge here.
Well, after much rancor I think I have gotten something workable out of one of the sources previously ripped out because it was being used and quoted from poorly: the 2024 Kleefeld post (a subject-matter expert who we cite as such all over the product) that I think genuinely threads the needle of WP:BLP concerns to avoid saying anything defamatory about Ishida, while clearly indicating that a) the strip's political leanings have undergone another jarring shift and b) it is now a giant pile of dog shit.
I think we are allowed to note briefly, in an article about a webcomic, that a scholar of webcomics felt it necessary to note that the comic's quality declined precipitously. I have tried to phrase this in a way that does not make any statements as claims to objective fact, and presents them entirely as quotations from Kleefeld.
By 2024, the strip had changed direction again; author Sean Kleefeld said that when catching up on Sinfest issues, he "wasn't understanding them", and that the comic's political themes had gone on a "downward spiral" that seemed "at odds with reality".[1]
References
- ^ Kleefeld, Sean (April 8, 2024). "On Tatsuya Ishida". Kleefeld on Comics. Archived from the original on May 4, 2024. Retrieved May 4, 2024.
How's about this. jp×g🗯️ 21:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's fair. Historyday01 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd definitely support that if we keep the article, but still support deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Elli. Still probably better overall to delete, but if the article stays, this should too. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, that would work. —Kusma (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks great - exactly what I was hoping we could get out of all this. I considered whether we might also be able to get Ishida's own statements in there to corroborate the new political direction; unfortunately, his "news" page is rather bare of actual statements. Maybe someone could dig deeper for that sort of thing. Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG per source review; we don't need an article if it is out of date and can't cover it's material accurately. Swordman97 talk to me 05:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Traumnovelle removed fully accurate categories on the sinfest page. Categories are not subject to the same verification requirements as written information, these should be restored at earliest convience 2601:447:C801:3AD0:DCAA:787F:36B1:C75F (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, content-related discussion should be left to the talkpage of the article, rather than in this deletion discussion. I appreciate the work done tho, of course! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons discussed elsewhere - "Article needs catching up to cover shifts in the subject's themes" isn't a great reason to delete, though it certainly does need some overhaul. Sinfest was a big deal in the early days of webcomics (one of the banner offerings for Keenspot, before Ishida left that site in 2006, and a breakout success by webcomic standards in general up through the early 2010s), and feels worth documenting for that historical value alone. It got a writeup in The Comics Journal as late as 2012, talking about the strip's artistic merits and the way its storytelling was developing in new and more complex directions. (Garrity, Shaenon (2012-04-23). "The Sisterhood of the Pimp Ninja Sluts". The Comics Journal. Retrieved 2024-07-30.) It's quite late here and I don't have time or energy to figure out how to best fit it into the article, or to revisit the recent (May) Haus of Decline/Bitter Karella podcast episode covering Sinfest's later developments (and how that fits with BLP), but there might be something there that can help bring the article up to date in a factual and reasonably neutral way. Mockingbus (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm extremely surprised to find this Garrity article I hadn't seen before. It is very good and certainly establishes more classic WP:N. Thank you for finding that! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: IMO Publishers Weekly articles and two book passages make it notable. The Publishers Weekly article, while it may be "based on an interview" as the table says, is not simply a straightforward transcript of an interview -- we can't just discount media coverage because it includes direct quotations like this.--MattMauler (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment JPxG's proposed inclusion seems fine to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Seems to adequately pass GNG per the comments above. — Czello (music) 15:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more feedback to the proposal from JPxG, which seems to be gaining some traction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)- This is insufficient. My vote remains on delete. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: notability is not temporary and JPxG's proposal shows that the current issues are summountable. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Question: I'm learning a lot about Wikipedia sourcing from this AfD :) A user edited the page to add this info, which was reverted quickly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinfest&diff=prev&oldid=1238006919 - note that the change is 'using some of the comic's strips themselves' as a reference to talk about what the comic has become. Why isn't this allowed? Perhaps because it's considered "original research" by Wikipedia, reading the comic and applying our own interpretation, rather than citing some expert doing it? Or is there some other policy? Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're correct on why it's forbidden. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note to the relisting admin that I've updated my original comment to "strong delete." The proposal that the relisting seeks to solicit more feedback on is to use a single unreliable self-published blog to give negative opinions about a living person and contentious political topics. This is counter to many of our policies, including WP:BLPSPS. Elspea756 (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding me -- this is one of the silliest comments I've read all month. A widely published scholar on the topic of webcomics said on his own website that the comic -- not the guy, the webcomic that the article is about -- had gone on a "downward spiral". Like, to be clear -- this is a farcical understatement. The comic is now, on a daily basis, the author going on extended rants about how he hates Jews and transgenders et cetera. To limit our description of this to "downward spiral" is already an extremely mild milquetoast phrasing resulting from massive concessions to BLP.
Your reasoning here is obscene: we can't write anything at all suggesting that the comic is bad, because it's so bad that mentioning how bad it is constitutes defamation, because it makes the guy who wrote it look like a bad person. Well, this makes no sense, there is no policy that says this, and nowhere else on Wikipedia do we make content decisions on this basis. - Do you genuinely think that WP:BLP says we're forbidden by policy to include any negative assessment of a creative work? Have you, or anyone else, successfully applied this reasoning to any other content in any other article? I claim the answer is "no", and this is a 100% diametrically-incorrect interpretation of what this policy says and how it works. jp×g🗯️ 05:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will counter the "widely published scholar" part; this author got a single book published and that's it. However, it's a very basic bit of reception of a creative work that indeed should not fall under BLP concerns. It doesn't even try to say what the politics are. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Maplestrip, for clearly debunking the "widely published scholar" claim. I'll note that WP:BLP says "Never use self-published sources." The proposed addition is to quote a self-published blog claiming that the artist is on a "downward spiral" and "at odds with reality."[13] The blogger's claim of a "downward spiral" is "everything you need to know about Ishida [the artist] and the downward spiral of Sinfest" is "The long, rambling, and hateful journey from ... nerd [to] addict [to] theorist [to] TERF [to] extremist." The "at odds with reality" claim is that "we've seen a comic creator slide into a headspace that seems at odds with reality." These are all from an unreliable self-published blog making contentious claims about a living person. This has no place in a wikipedia article. Elspea756 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- They are not in the article. I don't know how to explain to you that text not being in an article is not in an article, and I don't understand why you are just repeating the same thing over and over. Your claims are not true. jp×g🗯️ 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Amending a comment from elsewhere: Kleefeld may not be a widely-published scholar, but that doesn't mean he isn't a valid source. His book got at least one thorough and it seems generally favorable academic review in a relevant journal, and I'd argue that he's at least demonstrated credibility in the field. (Kashtan, Aaron (Summer 2021). "Webcomics by Sean Kleefeld (review)". Inks: The Journal of the Comics Studies Society. Ohio State University Press. Retrieved 2024-08-03.) -Mockingbus (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Maplestrip, for clearly debunking the "widely published scholar" claim. I'll note that WP:BLP says "Never use self-published sources." The proposed addition is to quote a self-published blog claiming that the artist is on a "downward spiral" and "at odds with reality."[13] The blogger's claim of a "downward spiral" is "everything you need to know about Ishida [the artist] and the downward spiral of Sinfest" is "The long, rambling, and hateful journey from ... nerd [to] addict [to] theorist [to] TERF [to] extremist." The "at odds with reality" claim is that "we've seen a comic creator slide into a headspace that seems at odds with reality." These are all from an unreliable self-published blog making contentious claims about a living person. This has no place in a wikipedia article. Elspea756 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will counter the "widely published scholar" part; this author got a single book published and that's it. However, it's a very basic bit of reception of a creative work that indeed should not fall under BLP concerns. It doesn't even try to say what the politics are. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- lol I guess your plan is to target the one consensus we had, get it knocked out, and then you can get back to pushing to delete the comic you don't like? Hornpipe2 (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding me -- this is one of the silliest comments I've read all month. A widely published scholar on the topic of webcomics said on his own website that the comic -- not the guy, the webcomic that the article is about -- had gone on a "downward spiral". Like, to be clear -- this is a farcical understatement. The comic is now, on a daily basis, the author going on extended rants about how he hates Jews and transgenders et cetera. To limit our description of this to "downward spiral" is already an extremely mild milquetoast phrasing resulting from massive concessions to BLP.
- Delete per non-notable with no WP:SIGCOV. And quite frankly, when I search for "Sean Kleefeld", I'm not seeing any reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV that would even qualify this guy for being a "scholar" by our guidelines, or to even have a biography. And a WP search for "Sean Kleefeld" only shows six results. And as one book review put it, his
lack of research makes most of what is offered appear anecdotal and subjective
. In my view, which is supported by an absence of reliable sources about this guy, his viewpoint is non-notable and insignificant. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)- Sean Kleefeld is not the author of Sinfest, whether he is notable or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether his books represent significant coverage of Sinfest. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe you have posted this comment on the wrong page -- Sean Kleefeld is one of around a dozen sources who's being cited for a single sentence. jp×g🗯️ 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing around a dozen sources being cited for this single sentence:
By 2024, the strip had changed direction again; author Sean Kleefeld said that when catching up on Sinfest issues, he "wasn't understanding them", and that the comic's political themes had gone on a "downward spiral"
. It appears to me a Wikipedia editor has analyzed and interpreted a primary source themselves, then decided that a single sentence is an adequate summary of a 1700+ word article, and then to boot, cherry-picked five words to emphasize (the "quoted passages"), because they think those five words are noteworthy out of a 1700+ word article. Sorry, but I prefer that third-party independent sources analyze and interpret primary sources, and then Wikipedia reports what they think is noteworthy. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)- This appears to be an objection to the general project of "summarizing and presenting the information found in reliable secondary sources", i.e., to the entire project of writing an encyclopedia. If you feel that Kleefeld's article is being misrepresented or missummarized in the article, that's a content question that is subject to discussion and consensus on the talk-page; it has nada to do with notability or deletion. (I am the same person as IP 100.36.106.199.) 71.25.15.114 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- This sentence implies a comma; sorry, let me type it out explicitly, so that there is no possible way to misinterpret it:
- I'm not seeing around a dozen sources being cited for this single sentence:
- Sean Kleefeld is one of around a dozen sources.
- Sean Kleefeld is being cited for a single sentence.
- Just to make it clear your comment is about Sean Kleefield not whether the Sinfest article should be deleted? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Relisting seems to have muddied the waters even further haha.
- Regardless of the status of edits adding Kleefeld's article as a source for new information, we come back to the same issue, which IMO is all around WP:NTEMP. Arguments that "the comic doesn't matter NOW" or "the comic hasn't mattered in 10 YEARS" does nothing to dissuade me, or I think most "keep" voters, from pointing out that the comic was notable THEN and should be kept for that reason alone. In fact, through this process, more sources have turned up discussing the comic during its heyday, which further reinforces notability during that time.
- But even so, some argue that even IF it was notable for a time, there seems to be some argument for a "notability quotient", where continued publication requires continued notability, i.e. WP:SUSTAINED on a very long time scale - is the barrier for notability higher, because the author didn't quit while he was ahead?
- The only thing that would persuade me, and (dare I speak for) most "keep" voters, is compelling arguments that the comic was never notable, or that even granted that, past notability isn't a high enough bar in this case. Aside from the (imo very flawed) source assessment table above, the closest thing to overlap I've seen between the two angles is "nobody is writing about its downfall now, so maybe it was never important to begin with." I think it would be beneficial to stick to a discussion of how WP:NTEMP works (or doesn't) with a long-running, lately-ignored media property instead, and hash out the Kleefeld article inclusion in the talk page.
- Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes; I have no idea why we are being forced to have this conversation at the AfD. I have absolutely no idea why we are being forced to have this conversation at the AfD when it's simultaneously happening on the talk page, and the same people are crossposting the same comments to both pages. It's unbelievably pointless and I frankly think anyone who brings this stuff up again should just have their comments clerked to the talk page and replaced here with a link. jp×g🗯️ 00:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisting seems to have muddied the waters even further
- Agreed, this AfD has been open for 17 days and at this point there is a clear consensus to keep the article, so someone should close this trainwreck. WP:RELIST says a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. I don't see any reason to wait, people seem to be getting frustrated with one another, evidenced by the screaming and hollering going on. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes; I have no idea why we are being forced to have this conversation at the AfD. I have absolutely no idea why we are being forced to have this conversation at the AfD when it's simultaneously happening on the talk page, and the same people are crossposting the same comments to both pages. It's unbelievably pointless and I frankly think anyone who brings this stuff up again should just have their comments clerked to the talk page and replaced here with a link. jp×g🗯️ 00:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Kleefeld may not be a notable scholar (and I'd argue that he isn't one at this time), but he isn't the one up for AFD here. His book got at least one thorough and it seems generally favorable academic review in a relevant journal. I'd argue that he's at least demonstrated credibility in the field. (Kashtan, Aaron (Summer 2021). "Webcomics by Sean Kleefeld (review)". Inks: The Journal of the Comics Studies Society. Ohio State University Press. Retrieved 2024-08-03.) -Mockingbus (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- keep: has been the subject of sustained and substantial critical attention. Just restricting to the online sources, the 2012 Comics Journal review and the recent Kleefeld blogpost are in-depth, independent coverage, and the Paste, Wired, and LJ reviews are well beyond passing mentions. None of the delete votes offers a compelling counter-argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- comment: the removal of the improvements to the article stands as further proof that sinfest is not, and has never been, notable outside of a minor fad for webcomics in the 2005-2015 era. We don’t need an article for every individual pog and we don’t need an article for every individual webcomic. After this comic page is deleted, I think that dresden codak should be next Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Visual arts - Proposed deletions
Visual arts - Images for Deletion
Visual arts - Deletion Review
Comedians
- {{comedian-stub}}
Dancers
- Portal:Dance
- Dance WikiProject
- {{dance-stub}}
- Category:Dancers
- Category:Ballet dancers
- Category:Ballroom dancers
- Category:Belly dancers
- Category:Blackface minstrel performers
- Category:Breakdancers
- Category:Contemporary dancers
- Category:Erotic dancers
- Category:Flamenco dancers
- Category:Folk dancers
- Category:Modern dancers
- Category:Dancers by nationality
- Category:Professional wrestling dancers
- Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants
- Category:Tap dancers
Directors
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (a child project of this workgroup).
Musicians
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians (a child project of this workgroup).
Poets
- {{poetry-stub}}
Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
- FAs:
- FACs:
- GAs:
- Create:
- AfDs:
- FAC:
- GA Noms:
Members
- Badbilltucker 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden talk 17:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Awadewit 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- María: (habla ~ cosas) 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- --Tom.mevlie (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Lists
- List of writers
- List of novelists
- List of philosophers
- List of historians
- List of poets
- List of translators
- List of dramatists
Stubs
- {{comics-creator-stub}}
- {{journalist-stub}}
- {{writer-stub}}
- {{Africa-writer-stub}}
- {{Australia-writer-stub}}
- {{Brazil-writer-stub}}
- {{Canada-writer-stub}}
- {{China-writer-stub}}
- {{euro-writer-stub}}
- {{Finland-writer-stub}}
- {{France-writer-stub}}
- {{Germany-writer-stub}}
- {{Ireland-writer-stub}}
- {{Italy-writer-stub}}
- {{Spain-writer-stub}}
- {{UK-writer-stub}}
- {{Japan-writer-stub}}
- {{MEast-writer-stub}}
- {{SAsia-writer-stub}}
- {{US-writer-stub}}
- {{Infobox Writer}}
- {{Infobox journalist}}
Categories
- Category:Writers
- Category:Writers by nationality
- Category:Writers by language
- Category:Ancient writers
- Category:Writers by award
- Category:Writers by format
- Category:Writers by genre
- Category:Middle Eastern writers
- Category:Muslim writers
- Category:African writers
- Category:Albanian writers
- Category:Algerian writers
- Category:American writers
- Category:Andorran writers
- Category:Angolan writers
- Category:Arab writers
- Category:Argentine writers
- Category:Armenian writers
- Category:Australian writers
- Category:Austrian writers
- Category:Azerbaijani writers
- Category:Bangladeshi writers
- Category:Basque writers
- Category:Belarusian writers
- Category:Belgian writers
- Category:Bengali writers
- Category:Beninese writers
- Category:Bermudian writers
- Category:Bolivian writers
- Category:Writers from Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Category:Botswanan writers
- Category:Brazilian writers
- Category:British writers
- Category:Bulgarian writers
- Category:Burundian writers
- Category:Byzantine writers
- Category:Cameroonian writers
- Category:Canadian writers
- Category:Cape Verdean writers
- Category:Chilean writers
- Category:Chinese writers
- Category:Colombian writers
- Category:Croatian writers
- Category:Cuban writers
- Category:Cypriot writers
- Category:Czech writers
- Category:Ivorian writers
- Category:Danish writers
- Category:Dutch writers
- Category:Ecuadorian writers
- Category:Egyptian writers
- Category:English writers
- Category:Equatoguinean writers
- Category:Estonian writers
- Category:Ethiopian writers
- Category:European writers
- Category:Faroese writers
- Category:Filipino writers
- Category:Finnish writers
- Category:French writers
- Category:Frisian writers
- Category:Gabonese writers
- Category:Georgian writers
- Category:German writers
- Category:Ghanaian writers
- Category:Greek writers
- Category:Guatemalan writers
- Category:Guinea-Bissauan writers
- Category:Guyanese writers
- Category:Hawaiian writers
- Category:Haitian writers
- Category:Hmong writers
- Category:Honduran writers
- Category:Hong Kong writers
- Category:Hungarian writers
- Category:Icelandic writers
- Category:Indian writers
- Category:Indonesian writers
- Category:Iranian writers
- Category:Iraqi writers
- Category:Irish writers
- Category:Israeli writers
- Category:Italian writers
- Category:Jamaican writers
- Category:Japanese writers
- Category:Kenyan writers
- Category:Korean writers
- Category:Kosovar writers
- Category:Kyrgyz writers
- Category:Laotian writers
- Category:Latvian writers
- Category:Lebanese writers
- Category:Lithuanian writers
- Category:Macedonian writers
- Category:Malagasy writers
- Category:Malaysian writers
- Category:Maldivian writers
- Category:Malian writers
- Category:Maltese writers
- Category:Mauritian writers
- Category:Mexican writers
- Category:Moldovan writers
- Category:Monegasque writers
- Category:Mongolian writers
- Category:Montenegrin writers
- Category:Moroccan writers
- Category:Mozambican writers
- Category:Namibian writers
- Category:Nepalese writers
- Category:New Zealand writers
- Category:Nicaraguan writers
- Category:Nigerian writers
- Category:Northern Irish writers
- Category:Norwegian writers
- Category:Pakistani writers
- Category:Palestinian writers
- Category:Panamanian writers
- Category:Paraguayan writers
- Category:Persian writers
- Category:Peruvian writers
- Category:Polish writers
- Category:Portuguese writers
- Category:Puerto Rican writers
- Category:Romanian writers
- Category:Russian writers
- Category:Saint Lucian writers
- Category:Salvadoran writers
- Category:Scottish writers
- Category:Senegalese writers
- Category:Serbian writers
- Category:Sierra Leonean writers
- Category:Singaporean writers
- Category:Slovak writers
- Category:Slovenian writers
- Category:Somali writers
- Category:Sorbian writers
- Category:South African writers
- Category:South American writers
- Category:Spanish writers
- Category:Sri Lankan writers
- Category:Sudanese writers
- Category:Swedish writers
- Category:Swiss writers
- Category:Syrian writers
- Category:Taiwanese writers
- Category:Tajikistani writers
- Category:Tanzanian writers
- Category:Thai writers
- Category:Togolese writers
- Category:Trinidad and Tobago writers
- Category:Tunisian writers
- Category:Turkish writers
- Category:Ugandan writers
- Category:Ukrainian writers
- Category:Uruguayan writers
- Category:Venezuelan writers
- Category:Vietnamese writers
- Category:Welsh writers
- Category:Writers of the Republic of the Congo
- Category:Non-fiction writers
- Category:Radio writers
- Category:Renaissance writers
- Category:Writers by subject area
- Category:Writers who committed suicide
- Category:Tamil writers
- Category:Wikipedia good articles on writers and critics
- Category:Women writers
Comic writers
Articles for deletion
Authors
- John_Kannenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person does not meet the notability criteria. That museum does not physically exist, he named himself director and chief curator, as far as I can see. Music label is also selfpublished. Linked websites are mostly his websites. Wikigrund (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 4. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Museums and libraries, and Wisconsin. C F A 💬 14:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Museum of Portable Sound which appears notable and for which I'm about to create a stub. Kannenberg can be discussed within. Star Mississippi 16:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I agree with Mississippi. As Director and Chief Curator of The Museum of Portable Sound more about Kannenberg can be added to the article. I am surprised it has this long for the article to be nominated for deletion or at least flagged given the article has no citations. Myotus (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Timothy O'Hagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does this pass WP:PROF? The citations for his books and papers seem limited so me, to the point where I am unconvinced of notability. Uhooep (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The article as nominated already had enough in-depth sources about his books (four about one and three about the other) for WP:AUTHOR. Citation counts are often not meaningful for academics in book-publishing fields. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jon Radoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:NBIO - while it does have a piece of significant coverage, the InfoWorld article, the others are just announcements and primary source interviews without substantive discussion. It does not pass WP:NARTIST either due to the fact he was just a co-developer or director of most games he made. When the article was first made it also failed NBIO and does not seem to have remedied that situation. There are a lot of minor mentions, but a lack of SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, still fails the
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
as most of them are primary and just trivial Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: ComputerHope database entry. This appears to be a follow up from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beamable, note that gamerDNA, founded by Radoff, also has an article.. IgelRM (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- When you add this Ars Technica article, combined with PC Gamer and Boston Globe articles, I do think GuildCafe/GamerDNA passes WP:NCORP, so I will not be nominating it for deletion. Though I can't say the same for its creator yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- But the Ars article heavily quotes Radoff, so I think WP:ATD would be feasible again. Not going by guidelines briefly, GamerDNA appeared to exist from 2006 to 2011(?), while Radoff had a career from 1992 to now. IgelRM (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- When you add this Ars Technica article, combined with PC Gamer and Boston Globe articles, I do think GuildCafe/GamerDNA passes WP:NCORP, so I will not be nominating it for deletion. Though I can't say the same for its creator yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Igor Sibaldi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Being the author of numerous books alone does not make one notable. Indeed, this article has been tagged for notability for almost 14 years, and searching for independent sources failed to find any. GTrang (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. GTrang (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, it's been 14 years and it's still fails to satisfy WP:GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jon M. Sweeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article appears to be promotional and has been edited extensively by user:Jonmsweeney, user:Jonmsweeney1234 and user:Friedsparrow, all SPA accounts who have also added Sweeney's name to other articles.
Much promo text has been removed since the article was raised at COIN [14], what remains is poorly sourced and it does not seem clear that notability criteria have been met. Axad12 (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 31. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep & fix article issues (or draftify). Yes, the article has had extensive edits by CoI accounts. However, as noted in the nom, much of the promo text has been addressed. Poorly sourced is not the same as unsourced, and it also is different from "unsourcable". A quick look through JSTOR shows that Sweeney is an often referenced academic in his field, and I think that the subject would be found to be notable with a little bit of effort. Fixing an article's issues is generally preferable to deletion (WP:ATD), and if that can't be done, it should be draftified. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Butlerblog
- Hi, yes point taken. Just to clarify on the issue of sources...
- When I said "poorly sourced" above I meant that some of the material is entirely unsourced and some of the sources that do exist are either written by Sweeney himself or are to YouTube or are promotional links to where his books can be purchased on Amazon.
- With regards to your comment re: "unsourcable", I think it's worth noting that the only person to have contributed to this article to any significant degree is the subject himself. If the subject has been unable to provide sourcing for basic info like his date of birth, place of birth, and details of his family history and educational history, then I think it's reasonable to assume that those details are indeed "unsourcable". Adding [citation needed] to that sort of thing would just be overly optimistic.
- So, it seems to me that there are genuine issues on the sourcing here for about 50% of the material in the current article. That being the case, I would also support your secondary suggestion of draftify.
- I take on board also the comments below re: reviews and WP:NAUTHOR. Axad12 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Correcting myself, in my post above I said "The subject" but I ought to have said "the subject or someone editing on his behalf " Axad12 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and address issues. Sweeney meets WP:NAUTHOR as multiple books have been the subject of reviews in reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. While there are COI issues it isn't TNT level bad, so there's no use deleting this when he is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the comments below, where is the evidence that the subject is notable? Axad12 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I did find a few reviews of his books (and added one to the article). But most of his books are un-reviewed because citing Publisher's Weekly merely means that the book was published - PW's role in the world is to provide one-paragraph "reviews" (often no more than listings) to everything they receive so that bookstores and libraries can see what has been published. Those "reviews" do not provide notability. And even if he has a few notable books, an article about a person requires reliable sourcing about that person. I went through many pages of search results and did not find any independent biographical information. I can change my mind if someone finds that information. Lamona (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Lamona: Sweeney's book have been reviewed by PW, Kirkus, Booklist, and Library Journal, which are often used to establish notability. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING. And their reviews are very brief. The policy says "non-trivial" and those are essentially the essence of trivial. Yes, they can be used as sources but no, they don't show notability. Aside from that, a review might show notability of an individual book, and this is an article for the author. "Wrote a lot of books" is not one of our notability criteria. Lamona (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Lamona: If they review "EVERYTHING", why haven't they reviewed all of Sweeney's books? ETA: Per NBASIC, "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ('John Smith at Big Company said...' or 'Mary Jones was hired by My University') that does not discuss the subject in detail." I would argue that having a single article dedicated to a book is not trivial -- even if the review is only a paragraph or two. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- You appear to be arguing that since not all of his books have been reviewed, that demonstrates that he must be notable. That seems like a very questionable claim.
- Evidently, if a non-notable author publishes a great many books the chances of some of them not appearing on the Publisher's World radar is rather high.
- That doesn't indicate that the author is notable, if anything it indicates that he is not notable.
- Realistically there will be 100s of 1,000s of non-notable authors worldwide who have published an endless stream of non-notable books. Some of their books will have been reviewed online either by PW or by some tame outlet which the author has connections to. That does not infer notability. Axad12 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: How do you determine which types of reviews are worthwhile to determine notability? According to WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources provided are considered reliable and independent, and given that they have full articles dedicated to each book, they also provide significant coverage. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Significa liberdade
- To be honest, I'm not sure. However, I'd assume reviews in locations which (a) do not attempt to review vast numbers of books for internal publishing industry purposes, (b) can be reliably assumed to be independent of the author, (c) carry some kind of weight (i.e. not local newspapers, blogs, fringe publications, etc.), i.e. the sorts of basic qualifications that one would expect to see in relation to other Wikipedia policies on sourcing, notability, etc.
- If any book review counts towards notability then pretty much every author ever published would qualify as notable for Wikipedia purposes - which I think we can agree cannot be correct.
- I feel to some extent that the fact that we are having this discussion on reviews demonstrates the lack of notability. E.g. for a genuinely notable author it wouldn't be necessary to consider this point because reviews in well known newspapers, magazines and periodicals would be available in abundance. Axad12 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be adding a lot of Library Journal reviews to the page. Isn't that basically just another industry publication which mass produces reviews? Axad12 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: Personally, I consider LJ, PW, Kirkus, and Booklist to be 1) reliable and 2) independent. Given that they provide significant coverage of each book (not just a trivial mention), I argue that they confirm notability. Can you explain why you do not consider them to be reliable or independent? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say that. It was Lamona who said, above, "All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING".
- My opinion is that a review in a source which reviews everything, or almost everything, cannot possibly confer notability because, if it did, almost all authors who have ever had a book published would be notable by Wikipedia standards - which evidently cannot be true.
- Or do you believe that every single author who has ever had a book or two reviewed in those sources is notable by Wikipedia standards? Axad12 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: I believe any "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a [...] collective body of work" that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is notable. My understanding is that means that any author who has had multiple books reviewed in reliable trade magazines is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Can you point to guidelines or past AfD discussions that claim otherwise? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: I found three additional book reviews through JSTOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you have so much time to spare, maybe try finding some sources for the content of the actual article, which is currently notably bereft of sources.
- Do be aware, however, that the subject (or someone very close to him) has been extensively COI editing the article under 3 accounts since it was set up 8 years ago, and even he was apparently unable to find sourcing for half of the material in the present article.
- Good luck!
- (P.S.: This is why 'draftify' is a very serious proposition.) Axad12 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: Given the above, three people have !voted to keep and one delete, though they have not further replied. Personally, I believe that if we draftified, this article would pass through AfC and be back in the main space, given that it has at least three reliable, independent sources. For a suitable alternative, I could move the article to something like Jon M. Sweeney bibliography if biographical information cannot be found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, at present it is 3:2 (rather than 3:1) in favour of Keep because, you also need to including my Delete vote as nominator. However, 2 of the 5 voters would also accept Draftify - so I would say that it is fairly close at present and the AfD really needs extra eyes on it rather than more comments from you and I.
- I brought the AfD mainly on the strength of comments on the article talk page and a feeling that the extreme WP:PROMO nature of the article a few weeks ago indicated that there were potential issues over notability.
- We've covered some issues above and I think that has been very useful, but I really think what is needed now is more eyes.
- With regard to your idea above (J.M.Sw bibliography) I would say that that would be fine as it would prevent the article from becoming clogged up again with huge amounts of COI fluff, which will be the very likely result if the result of this AfD is Keep.
- Best wishes and thanks for your thoughts above. Axad12 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: Given the above, three people have !voted to keep and one delete, though they have not further replied. Personally, I believe that if we draftified, this article would pass through AfC and be back in the main space, given that it has at least three reliable, independent sources. For a suitable alternative, I could move the article to something like Jon M. Sweeney bibliography if biographical information cannot be found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: Personally, I consider LJ, PW, Kirkus, and Booklist to be 1) reliable and 2) independent. Given that they provide significant coverage of each book (not just a trivial mention), I argue that they confirm notability. Can you explain why you do not consider them to be reliable or independent? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be adding a lot of Library Journal reviews to the page. Isn't that basically just another industry publication which mass produces reviews? Axad12 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: How do you determine which types of reviews are worthwhile to determine notability? According to WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources provided are considered reliable and independent, and given that they have full articles dedicated to each book, they also provide significant coverage. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Lamona: If they review "EVERYTHING", why haven't they reviewed all of Sweeney's books? ETA: Per NBASIC, "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ('John Smith at Big Company said...' or 'Mary Jones was hired by My University') that does not discuss the subject in detail." I would argue that having a single article dedicated to a book is not trivial -- even if the review is only a paragraph or two. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING. And their reviews are very brief. The policy says "non-trivial" and those are essentially the essence of trivial. Yes, they can be used as sources but no, they don't show notability. Aside from that, a review might show notability of an individual book, and this is an article for the author. "Wrote a lot of books" is not one of our notability criteria. Lamona (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Lamona: Sweeney's book have been reviewed by PW, Kirkus, Booklist, and Library Journal, which are often used to establish notability. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: as nominator. Axad12 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
your nomination statement counts as your delete vote Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as passes WP:AUTHOR due to multiple reviews including academic coverage on JSTOR. Anything unsourced can be removed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tan Yinglan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I know this is a shorter than normal re-nom window, but the most recent creator has been blocked and locked for UPE. None of the factors have changed and I'm hoping for more input and therefore resolution after the May no consensus. Star Mississippi 12:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Singapore. Star Mississippi 12:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Sources appear to be passing mentions or non-independent/promotional coverage. Not seeing enough to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Recommending salting based on the SOCKing and UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The analysis presented last of of the sources from the IP editor clearly show this is not notable. Routine coverage or name drops don't help prove notability. I don't find anything we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources and fails WP:GNG. Fjnat (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Madlen Namro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None of the sources on this page are helpful for notability. There is an extremely brief mention in a British newspaper article on a book she co-wrote and that's all I found while searching. Her one bluelinked work is non-notable and I have nominated it for deletion as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Poland. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment looking through the very odd history of this page I think this might have been a COI creation, but I can't be sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete. No pl wiki interwiki. The publisher has a (not impressive) pl wiki article: pl:Wydawnictwo Anagram. I've never heard of her, and I am interested in Polish sf. I could not find reviews of her books, etc. - they seem to be rather unpopular. All I have for her is a single interview in reliable but regional Polish newspaper: Dziennik Łódzki. [15]. No awards, no critical coverage... I am afraid she fails WP:NBIO/WP:NWRITER/etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Piotrus' analysis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Douglas L. Fagerstrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable author and executive. Very few citations in other literature, even more obscure in news/media. PierceG (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Businesspeople. PierceG (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not finding anything that could source his biographical info. He has written books in a certain religious niche but they are popular rather than academic, so he doesn't meet that criterion. This is not my topic area so I will cycle back in case someone can give us leads on sourcing. Lamona (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Right now, there’s a single source, which is tantamount to WP:OR, and nobody has come forth with []WP:RS|any better sources]]. He hasn’t even done anything notable. Bearian (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Alyy Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or writers. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their work in reliable sources independent of themselves.
That is, you do not make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to coverage and analysis about her writing, such as news articles about her, analytical reviews of her writing in newspapers or magazines or academic journals, and on and so forth -- and you don't make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to the self-published websites of the organizations she has been directly affiliated with, you make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to third-party coverage about it, such as news articles about her, book content about her, and on and so forth.
But this is supported entirely by primary sources with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all: 11 of the footnotes are just the publication details of her own writing, and a 12th is just the publication details of an anthology that one of her pieces was in; one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better but does not help to get her over GNG in and of itself per WP:INTERVIEWS; another is just a YouTube video clip of her speaking, which she self-published to her own YouTube channel; and all of the rest is content self-published by non-media organizations she's directly connected to -- which means absolutely none of the footnotes are GNG-compliant at all.
Again, the notability test doesn't reside in the things she did, it resides in the amount of GNG-worthy coverage she has or hasn't received about the things she did, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this.
Also note that normally I would just have sandboxed this in draftspace as improperly sourced, but another editor has already done that and the creator just immediately unsandboxed it right back into mainspace without actually improving the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of sourcing; there are simply no stories about this individual in RS. This [16] is a student newspaper and this is primary [17]. Most of the sources used in the article aren't useful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep:
- - more Sources got added, below are two more Interviews
- - https://www.friesenpress.com/blog/2023/6/27/alyy-patel-author-interview
- - https://urbanasian.com/crown-the-brown/2020/02/valentines-pride-praanee-and-alyy-were-desi-gender-fluid-in-love/ Cupkake4Yoshi (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Interviews are not WP:GNG-building sourcing. A source has to represent somebody else talking about her in the third person, not her talking about herself or something else in the first. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - They pass WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC with multiple cited peer reviewed published papers. Also while yes, some of the refs in the article are interviews, the point of them being discounted for AfDs is contended and the essay WP:INTERVIEW is just that, an essay, not policy or guideline, plus even the essay says that sometimes interviews can add to notability, not outright dismissal of them. Raladic (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note that much of her academic work was under her birth name "Sonali Patel", which brings up most of the academic sources and citations, including her work having been cited in several (just pulled up some quickly here [18], [19]) published books, including the latest from just a few months ago by a respected Canadian Professor. It looks like the AfD nomination missed the academic side of the person, and that they are/were going by different names was missed in WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating the article for deletion. Raladic (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as per Raladic.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Raladic (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep due to the peer reviewed published papers which shows that it meets GNG criteria and WP:NACADEMIC. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nori Bunasawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article seems to have started out as draft created by 110347nbtough in November 2020, who subsequently seemed to claim they were Bunasawa himself over on Wikimedia Commons here and here. The draft was then approved by DN27ND about a month later, even though the DN27ND account was only four days old and seems to have no experience as an WP:AFC reviewer. Moreover, DN27ND is an WP:SPA whose primary focus on English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Japanese Wikipedia has been creating/editing content about Bunasawa; in other words, it seems that the account was specifically and only created for that purpose.
I wasn't sure about the subject's Wikipedia notablity per WP:BIO and asked about the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Nori Bunasawa. DN27ND was pinged into the discussion but never responded. It was then suggested on my user talk page that the article be nominated for deletion. I tried some more WP:BEFORE but found nothing resembling significant coverage. I also tried looking at the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:樗沢憲昭 and the Egyptian Arabic Wikiepdia article arz:نورى_بوناساوا but found nothing resembling significant coverage being cited in either of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Potential COI issues aside, the subject evidently seems to be a notable coach at Olympic and World Championship level, and for US colleges. Other pursuits as a magazine publisher/author and film consultant (?) would probably not rise to notability themselves, but the coverage for all three careers being mostly in 50+ year old newspapers – paired with the subject being otherwise covered by not only non-English, but non-Latin-alphabet, media – would be the AGF reason for fewer substantial sources (which is satisfactory here). The article could do with some clean-up, but from a glancing view I would also say it is not short on sources for its coverage, and that the coverage generally indicates notability. Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Collapsing a large amount of bludgeoning content from an editor now pblocked from the discussion (as well as a smaller number of replies from other editors to the bludgeoning). Daniel (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Keep The subject of the articles is notable as a US coach at the Olympic, World, and collegiate levels. He is also involved in the movie industry and has multiple credits. His The Toughest Man Who Ever Lived. Is in the process of being adapted into a motion picture.
- Citations on his coaching career
- Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register.
- "Judo". Orange Network. 385: 7. April 2023.
- New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975
- "Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975.
- Citations & evidence on his involvement in the motion picture industry
- https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12094236/
- Bunasawa's involvement in "Dead or Alive"
- https://www.judoinside.com/judoka/90786/Noriaki_Bunasawa/judo-career
- José Padilha as the director on the BJJ-Judo movie project
- https://www.imdb.com/news/ni62362469/
- https://about.netflix.com/en/news/jos%C3%A9-padilha-attached-to-write-and-direct-feature-film-dead-or-alive-with-greg-silvermans-stampede-for-netflix
- https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/narcos-director-jose-padilha-tackling-netflix-jiu-jitsu-movie-dead-alive-1181926/
- DN27ND (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have added the following source assessment table for many of the additional sources cited above by DN27ND. It doesn't cover all of the sources DN27ND mentioned, but I'll keep searching online for links for those not in the table. I used Google translate for the one Russian source since I don't understand Russian, but am able to read the Japanese sources unassisted. The assessments are mine and I tried to give detailed explanations as to the reasons why I made them. The table's last column "Count source toward GNG?" is an assessment done by the table itself. An explanation of it's computed can be found at Template:Source assess#"Overall" assessment.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Marchjuly
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/may/12/ichiban-sports-complex-shares-strange-s/ | Independently published newspaper article | 2016 article in Arkansas Democrat Gazette | Bunasawa in mentioned by name twice, but the main focus of the article is Willard Robertson and the Ichiban Sports Complex. Bunasawa is mentioned as being won of several "experts" Robertson brought in to work at the complex. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but might be OK to use as a RS for certain article content. | ✘ No |
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qNUDAAAAMBAJ&q=bunasawa&pg=PA38&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=bunasawa&f=false | Independently published magazine article | Four-page article titled "Title techniques" in the July 1978 issue of Black Belt (magazine) | ? Three of the four pages are photos of Bunsawa demonstrating some technique, but the first page is part interview and part biographical material. Not sure this qualifies as sigcov per se, but it seems enough of a RS to support some article content. The quoted parts of the article though probably need to be treated as WP:ABOUTSELF. | ? Unknown |
https://www.abebooks.com/9780964898424/Toughest-Man-Who-Lived-Nori-096489842X/plp#:~:text=A%20book%20about%20Conde%20Koma,force%20in%20the%20martial%20arts | ? AbeBooks page about the book Toughest Man Who Ever Lived. The paragraph on the book appears to be WP:UGC content | ? Could possibly be used to support Bunasawa co-writing the book | Not close to being sigcov for either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR | ✘ No |
https://www.judoinside.com/judoka/90786/Noriaki_Bunasawa/judo-career | ? Has a fansite feel to it. | ? Niche website which looks like UGC content, but might be conisdered a RS for Judo. | Brief profile blurb that might be OK as a RS for certain article content but isn't close to being sigcov. | ✘ No |
https://www.instagram.com/p/Crg9KAmBek5/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D | Instagram account that appears to be connected to Bunasawa. | ? UGC and WP:SPS type of source that only could be used per WP:ABOUTSELF | Not close to being sigcov | ✘ No |
https://www.imdb.com/news/ni62362469/ | IMDb blurb about this 2019 The Hollywood Reporter article | ? Original article is probably a good source for content about the movie, but there's nothing in the article about Bunasawa; so, trying to use this to support content about Bunasawa's involvement with the film seems to be WP:SYN. | Not close to being signcov | ✘ No |
https://about.netflix.com/en/news/jos%C3%A9-padilha-attached-to-write-and-direct-feature-film-dead-or-alive-with-greg-silvermans-stampede-for-netflix | ? Netflix PR blurb about film | ? Like the above source, might be for content about the film as WP:PRIMARY source, but makes no mention of Bunasawa. | Not close to being sigcov | ✘ No |
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12094236/ | Bunasawa's IMDb page | IMDb pages are generally not considered RS per WP:IMDB | Not close ot being sigcov | ✘ No |
https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/4294861/ | ? Russian language movie website | ? Looks to be similar to IMDb, and bascially just a cast/crew list for the 1990 film Martial Marshal (seems to also be called Judo Justice). Bunasawa isn't mentioned at all | Not close to being sigcov | ✘ No |
https://en.kinorium.com/2680888/cast/ | ? Another movie database type site | ? Appear to be an IMDb type site. Bunasawa in listed by name in the "Cast" section as playing "Gonji Tamashita" but nothing more. | ? Not close to being sigcov | ? Unknown |
https://4kou.jp/news/434/ (link is to high school's alumni association's website which scanned and reposted the article. An April 2021 archived version of the article from the Asahi Shimbun website can be found here.) | September 2020 article/feature in the Saitama edition of the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun | The Asahi Shimbun is certainly a RS, but this seems to have appeared only in a local edition of the paper for Saitama Prefecture. It's also primarily about the one of the area's local high school's and the school's alumni. There are five half-pages and Bunasawa is mentioned (there's a photo of him as well) on the fifth half-page along with others (including his older brother) who were involved in the school's judo club. This could be a RS to support article content about Bunasawa having a brother, going to this particular high school, or some other associated article content. | ? There's more converage about Bunasawa in this particular article than there's is in perhaps many of the other sources mentioned above, but it doesn't seem to be sigcov. | ? Unknown |
https://www.judo-ch.jp/result/ajsc/men1970.shtml | ? Database-like site of judo competition results | ? Appears to be a UGC type of site, but might be considered reliable for articles about judo competitions。Bunsawa is mentioned by name once for finishing runner up in the light-weight class of a 1969 judo tournament in Fukuoka, Japan. | Not close to being sigcov | ✘ No |
https://sputniknews.jp/20190902/6634165.html | ? August 2019 piece by Sputnik (news agency) | Site isn't considered reliable per WP:SPUTNIK but not clear whether that applies to judo. The Wikipedia article about the site states it's frequently described as a "propaganda outlet" that's currently banned in the EU. This might have more to do with other things than judo though. The article is only a few paragraphs long and quotes Bunasawa a couple of times (as an "expert" perhaps) on how non-Japanese judokas can prepare to beat their Japanese counterparts at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. | Not close to being sigcov | ✘ No |
https://www.ocjaa.org/orange-network | Piece in the April 2023 issue of a magazine/newsletter put out by the Orange County Japanese American Association. | ? This would appear to be UGC content with very little if any kind of rigorous editorial control. I don't think the OCJAA would knowingly post anything false, but they might not have the capability to the type of strenuous fact checking expected of a RS. It's certainly doesn't seem to be a major news publication; it doesn't even seem to be close to the level of the Rafu Shimpo. It's published in Japanese and its target audience is most likely Japanese-Americans, Japanese nationals or other Japanese speakers living/working in the area. The April 2023 issue in which the the article "Judo" is supposed to appear isn't available any longer on the OCJAA website, but the cover can be seen here. I tried to see if I could find an archived version of of the issue from an archived version of the main page like this one from June 2023 or this one from April 2024 and work backwards, but had no luck. | ? Hard to assess whether the article is sigcov, but from looking at some recent issues still available online like july 2024, June 2024, May 2024 and April 2024, the "magazine" appears to be mainly advertisements and event listing with a few stories/interviews thrown in. There's a good chance the "Judo" article was an part interview and part general interest piece that had some biographical information about Bunasawa but nothing resembling the sigcov to help establish Wikipedia notability. | ? Unknown |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
-- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lean delete per table above, unless it is updated with other sources. The COI is a contributing factor. DN27ND, please do not try to convince me otherwise of COI, you had several essays worth of space to do so and you have not yet. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
More bludgeoning (again, with a smaller number of brief contributions by others to said bludgeoning). Daniel (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Delete on the basis that this discussion [20] suggests that the subject doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Also, the article was originally written by a user who has claimed on Commons to be the subject. User DN27ND is clearly closely associated with the subject, if they are not actually the subject, and at the very least is editing directly on behalf of the subject. His claims to be a journalist are clearly questionable, as journalists do not post the results of their work on Wikipedia. COI users, however, do. Axad12 (talk) 14.39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I appreciate the analysis done by Marchjuly. I had started to put together my own list, but he published first. I generally agree with his analysis. I didn't see anything that convinces me that there are multiple cases of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Passing mentions, being named a judo instructor, martial arts rank, demonstrating techniques, and listings of results have never been considered sufficient to provide the coverage necessary to show WP notability. There is no evidence that he meets WP:SPORTBASIC which talks about having "success in a major international competition at the highest level." He didn't qualify for the Japanese team even though they were awarded two spots in each division. Being one of two team alternates in his division isn't enough, nor are high school or collegiate championships. I also don't see him meeting notability requirements as an author or actor. I would say he's a talented judoka, but that alone is not grounds for WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Yet more bludgeoning along with a healthy dose of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- DN27ND, I suggest you look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. The notability of other articles has no bearing on the WP notability of this article. If you feel those articles about about non-notable subjects, you are welcome to put them up for deletion. If the U.S. head coach at the 1972 Olympics isn't notable, why would the technical coach be notable? I would also caution you about WP:BLUDGEON. I mention these other guidelines because the fact you haven't contributed to any other articles means you might not be aware of other relevant policies and guidelines. You should be aware that open events mean they are open to all (hence the name). They are often different from national championships, especially in sports that can only accommodate a limited number of competitors. For example, this year's U.S. Open in chess has over 300 competitors, but the U.S. championship invites the highest ranked 10 Americans (according to world rankings). Papaursa (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
No prizes for guessing why this is being collapsed at this point. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Comment/Question I've stopped trying to read through the avalanche of text by DN27ND. Am I wrong or are both of the keep votes from him? Papaursa (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, one is from Kingsif. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Am I wrong to keep votes from you? You who believes IBJJF senior 2 divisions count as notable because they are international competitions DN27ND (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, one is from Kingsif. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I hate to interrupt your monologue, but you might want to get your facts correct. I never said Cartmell was notable. My editing of his page was to remove 3000+ characters of text, as was agreed to at the AfD discussion. Any search of my edits would show I have frequently argued for removal of articles based on age group titles. Harping on 14 year old edits from a then new user shows how much you don't understand about how WP works. Papaursa (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed two entries from the source assessment table that were added by added by DN27ND, on the basis that the source assessment table above is clearly marked "prepared by User:Marchjuly" and so it is misleading to add source analysis that is not actually prepared by Marchjuly. DN27ND is free to re-add this analysis separately if it is clearly indicated with who it's coming from. DanCherek (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- There were users who wanted me to add to the table. I shouldnt have to do Marchjuly's homework, but ok I'll entertain him. I posted 2 of the relevant photographs of newspaper clippings rather than add those sources to his table list before its deletion, he choose to hide them before deletion. This is censorship of sourced information and of sources. DN27ND (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful to have some input from Marchjuly and Papaursa on whether the two sources in the table below genuinely count towards satisfying WP:GNG. My understanding of previous comments in this thread is that references to someone having been a coach do not confer notability.
- Personally I'm very reluctant to take the word of an editor who has admitted to having approved a draft that they had themselves authored, in clear contravention of policy, and who seems to be very unfamiliar with broader policy here. Not to mention, of course, the fact that they have a conflict of interest but have yet to declare it on their user page. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this. I think it's possible the subject of the article is notable, but the draft creation and approval process is so suspect that I don't think we should keep the article up. It sets a bad precedent. If someone really wants this article back, then they can recreate in future, without a COI and without this extreme belligerence. The conduct from DN27ND in this thread has been unacceptable. Throwing around accusations of censorship, walls of text, poor understanding of Wikipedia policy and refusal to learn the policy, refusal to adjust the POV language. It just keeps going.
- I already voted above, but we should delete the article. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- There were users who wanted me to add to the table. I shouldnt have to do Marchjuly's homework, but ok I'll entertain him. I posted 2 of the relevant photographs of newspaper clippings rather than add those sources to his table list before its deletion, he choose to hide them before deletion. This is censorship of sourced information and of sources. DN27ND (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Collapsing per the inappropriate commentary and line of questioning. Daniel (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
As I posted above and in my edit summary, I "hid" the images per WP:TPG#Removing prohibited material because they were copyvios uploaded to Wikipedia Commons and were subsequently deleted as such by a Commons' administrator. DN27ND was advised not to do this, but went ahead and did so anyways. As I also posted above, I would've happily unhid the files if Commons would've kept them. DN27ND was also advised that they could post at c:COM:ANU#User:DN27ND and explain why the two uploads weren't copyvios. DN27ND can still request the undeletion of the files at c:COM:REFUND if they feel the files were wrongly deleted. If DN27ND thinks I censored them or otherwise did something else inappropriate by doing this, they're free to seek administrator assistance at WP:ANI; if hiding the files was wrong, an administrator will let me know and even possibly sanction me for it. A Wikipedia administrator can't restore the files, though, since they were uploaded to Commons (please don't misunderstand this as meaning it's OK to reupload them to locally to Wikipedia though) and need to restroed by a Commons administrator.
As for the source assessment table, DN27ND or anyone else re-assess the same sources I did or assess other yet-to-be assessed sources (with or without using a table), but it would be better to do so as their own separate post (maybe a brief assessment or table here on this AFD page and more further analysis on the AfD's talk page if needed my be a good idea). Others, however, really shouldn't be modifying my post to add their assessments to my table per WP:TPO because doing so makes it seems as if it's my assessment and not theirs; this is why DanCherek, who's a Wikipedia administrator, reverted DN27ND's edit to the table I created. If DN27ND feels DanCherek censored them by doing this, they're free to discuss things with Dan at User talk:DanCherek or seek other administrator assistance at WP:ANI. It's not a question of doing someone else's homework for them, but rather a question of misrepresenting what someone else has posted by modifying it in some way (i.e. putting your words into their mouth) without a really good Wikipedia policy based reason for doing so. If DN27ND and others mistakenly thought the table I created was for them to build on, then my apologies for not making it clear that it wasn't. Now, if anyone disagrees with my source analysis, they're of course free to post why; once again, though, they should do so in their own post and not insert their comments into the middle of one of mine. FWIW, I've added a signature to the post DN27ND made to create their source assessment table since it was missing one. I did this per WP:TPG#Attributing unsigned comments and didn't modify the post in any other way. If DN27ND wants to add some kind of introductory statement to the post, they can. They should also be able to expand the table with additional assessments if they want, but might want to follow WP:REDACT if they do, particularly if others have already commented on the assessments given in the table and posted below the table.
Finally, I've posted enough in this discussion already; others are more than capable of reading all that's been posted above (or what's yet to come) and making their own assessments regarding Bunasawa's Wikipedia notablity. DN27ND doesn't really need to convince me of this, but the WP:ONUS is on them to establish a WP:CONSENUS among others that Bunasawa is indeed Wikipedia notable. That's what the Wikipedia administrator who ultimately reviews the discussion will be looking for and assessing. I've no problem leaving things to that administrator and WP:CONSENUS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to add this to my last post but forgot. A possible alternative to deletion might be to WP:DRAFTIFY so that it can continue to be worked on. I do think, however, that there should be a condition attached to this if that's what the consensus ends up being: the draft should be submitted for WP:AFC review and not moved back to the mainspace by either the article's creator, any other (new) account with an WP:APPARENTCOI, but might be able to skip AfC if assessed and moved by an account which is WP:AUTOPATROLLED or an established record of problem-free article creation. That's not a guarantee that the article won't or can't end up at AfD again, but it might address any COI concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- For why I advocate for deletion over draftify: I'm a bit uncomfortable with the likely COI's impact on the article's content. I think deleting would be cleaner.
- If we do draftify, I'd prefer if the reviewer be informed about the conditions under which the article was created, and that the POV language gets toned down before approval. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to add this to my last post but forgot. A possible alternative to deletion might be to WP:DRAFTIFY so that it can continue to be worked on. I do think, however, that there should be a condition attached to this if that's what the consensus ends up being: the draft should be submitted for WP:AFC review and not moved back to the mainspace by either the article's creator, any other (new) account with an WP:APPARENTCOI, but might be able to skip AfC if assessed and moved by an account which is WP:AUTOPATROLLED or an established record of problem-free article creation. That's not a guarantee that the article won't or can't end up at AfD again, but it might address any COI concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
|
- After repeated warnings about bludgeoning, the user made 24 replies, interrupted by one reply from Axad12, in a row. A number of the replies alledge conspiracies and are accusations about having hidden agendas. A number of the replies are about my race: [21][22][23]. At what point does this stop being acceptable? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- An absolutely incredibly amount of bludgeoning which caused significant disruption to this deletion discussion. I have taken liberty to collapse a large amount of it. Daniel (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- After repeated warnings about bludgeoning, the user made 24 replies, interrupted by one reply from Axad12, in a row. A number of the replies alledge conspiracies and are accusations about having hidden agendas. A number of the replies are about my race: [21][22][23]. At what point does this stop being acceptable? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by User:DN27ND
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fears, Randy (October 1975). "U.S. Judo team". Rogers Daily News. | Independently published newspaper article . | Article in the October 1975 newspaper put out by the Roger Daily News | Clearly states that Bunasawa (runner up in the All-Japan Championships in 1969) and Zeelenburg (seargent in the Air Force) were coaches on the USA World Team that competed in Vienna. The author had a typo in which he states that the Vienna Judo World Championships were in 1976, but in actuality they were in 1975 | ✔ Yes |
Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register | Independently published newspaper article . | Article in the March 1988 newspaper put out by the Orange County Register | Clearly states that Bunasawa was a US Olympic coach in 1972 | ✔ Yes |
"New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975. | Independently published newspaper article . | Article in the February 1975 newspaper put out by the Indiana Evening Gazette | Clearly states that Bunasawa was coaching the IUP (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) judo team . | ✔ Yes |
"Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975. | Independently published newspaper article . | Article in the April
1975 newspaper put out by the Rogers Daily News of Arkansas |
States that Bunasawa was one of the coaches for the US World judo team at Vienna. Also that he had an exhibition at the Ichiban that was accompanied by Bob Hope. Also states that he was coaching the IUP (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) judo team. | ✔ Yes |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by DN27ND (talk • contribs) 03:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Section break 1
- Admin comment, I have p-blocked DN27ND Star Mississippi 01:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- And I have collapsed large portions of the bludgeoning that led to this pblock. I have also installed a section break to make it easier for new editors to contribute. Daniel (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am hesitant to relist this, but I do not think consensus has been reached yet (though we could be close). Could new comments please focus on the two source assessments provided?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)- The former of the two source assessment tables is based on online sources which can be checked. It is by an experienced contributor and indicates that GNG hasn't been met. That was also the opinion of three other contributors to this discussion.
- The latter of the two source assessment tables is based on sources that have only been seen by a contributor with an admitted COI. From their contributions above their understanding of Wikipedia policies is clearly faulty and I don't think their assessment of GNG can be given any credence.
- Now that the latter user has been blocked from contributing to this discussion I don't see how the rest of us are likely to be able to see the sources that they refer to. While that is unfortunate, the chances of those sources having satisfied GNG must surely be assessed as exceptionally low.
- Apart from the COI contributor, the only other contributor to vote KEEP did so on the basis that "from a glancing view I would also say [the article] is not short on sources", but no one disputes the quantity of the sources, the issue is the quality. Axad12 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per Source analysis table, no WP:SIGCOV, thus WP:GNG not met. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Has anyone looked at the offline(?) sources mentioned by the user trying to keep? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It would appear not, based on this resource request at WikiProject Resource Exchange [24]. Axad12 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a follow-up to Marchjuly's post at the Resource Exchange, I'd be happy to share a full-text copy of the Orange County Register source via email with anyone who wants it. Just let me know! I don't have time to otherwise contribute to this AFD, so will leave that for others. DanCherek (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I received an email from DanCherek about a 1988 Orange Country Register article by John Rezell titled "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense" a few days ago in response to my WP:RX request. However, I wasn't sure if it would be OK to post the link here; so, I asked about it at WP:AN#COPYLINK question. I did look at the article and did come up with my own assessment of it, but the reason I didn't add to my "source assessment table" above was because I don't think it really qualifies as significant coverage to establish Wikipedia notability on its own. It certainly has value as a reliable source in support of certain article content, and it is about Bunasawa; however, it's mainly about his involvement in teaching elementary school students judo with some quotes and a bit of background as well. To me it seemed like a nice local interest story but not really a strong claim for Wikipedia notability. Given the tenor of the discussion at that time and that the article's creator had provided their own assessment, I didn't want to add mine to the table until I could also add a link to the article; so, that others can see and assess it for themselves. I also didn't offer to email the link to anyone else because it didn't come from me and I didn't want to do so without checking with DanCherek first. I've been trying to find some of the other articles mentioned above online somewhere but haven't had much success. I don't have a membership to newspapers.com and their may be some stuff there. Finally, my assessments of this offline source and the other sources in my source assessment table are just my assessments. It should go without saying that others can freely check those links and disagree with my assessments if they feel the need to do so. Others are also free to get the link that I got from DanCherek, but there are issues posting it on Wikipedia that you should be aware. DanCherek will probably explain these to you if you ask. Finally, there are various newly created accounts posting which would be considered WP:ILIKEIT type "keep" !votes at Talk:Nori Bunasawa and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nori Bunasawa. If someone wants to incoporate these !votes into this discussion, then please do. Since it appears that word of this AfD has probably been sent via text/email/social media/whatever to these other persons (I don't think their posts are a coincidence), it might also be a good idea to add {{Not a ballot}} to the top of this AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comments on DN27ND's sources Stating facts does not make coverage significant. Nobody has disputed he was a US team coach, though being a technical coach is less than being the head coach. When even appearing at the event as a competitor isn't sufficient to show WP notability, it's clear that coaching is even less likely to show notability--especially when the teams he was coaching won no medals. Coaching the IUP collegiate team is even less of a notability indicator (see WP:NCOLLATH). That's why many MMA fighters have been deleted, nobody disputed the facts but fight coverage, results, and databases are not considered sufficient to show significant coverage. I hope I am now finished with this topic. Papaursa (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I was able to find one of the sources mentioned above by DN27ND, but it's behind a paywall. Being behind a paywall doesn't mean it can't be used per WP:PAYWALL, but it does make it harder to verify.The source is as follows: "New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975 – via NewspaperArchive.In addition, I was able to find some other stuff: this 2002 article in the Los Angeles Times is about Bunaswa being a local business owner representing a group involved in a zoning dispute with the City of Costa Mesa that mentions he owns Judo Journal; this is 2017 The Freeman article is about Bunaswa teaching a seminar in the Philippines and describes him as "legendary"; this describes Bunaswa being inducted into a "Masters Hall of Fame" in 2000; this is a 1996 The New York Times article quotes Bunaswa about the performance of the Japanese men's judo team at the 1996 Summer Olympics as refers to him as the publisher of Judo Journal; and this June 1977 issue of Black Belt magazine has a picture of Bunasawa and states he was a "former All-Japan Collegiate Judo Champion" as part of a larger article about someone or something else, If you Google Bunasawa, you'll get lots of hits to various YouTube videos and other stuff, but I'm not sure how much of it rises to the level generally needed per WP:SIGCOV and how much is just trivial stuff as defined by the Wikipedia community.Many of the sources mentioned above by DN27ND like Rogers Daily News, Orange County Register and Indiana Evening Gazette are newspapers per se, but they seem to be more local/county publications with limited subscription bases that cater specifically to their particular areas. They might do lots of features on local residents or local businesses just because that's part of the niche they're trying to carve out. Such sources don't immediately jump out (in my opinion) as being significnt coverage. Finally, I don't think a valid claim of notability for Bunasawa can be made per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACTOR
or WP:NCREATIVE; so, it seems everything is riding on whether he meets WP:NSPORTS or perhaps maybe maybe WP:ANYBIO. Promotional tone or COI related issuses should be able to be sorted out if the consensus is that Bunasawa clearly meets WP:BASIC; however, no amount of cleaning up will matter per WP:OVERCOME if the consensus is that he doesn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC); post edited. -- 11:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- Many thanks for the sterling work above.
- I share your concerns about local newspapers. The journalists have a certain amount of space to fill and anything vaguely outside of the norm that they happen to hear about will get covered. Often the coverage ends up being because the subjects approached the papers concerned and nothing else happened that week. So, the fact that something was reported does not infer SIGCOV or notability.
- My vote is still for Delete. Axad12 (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I might've of found another one of the sources mentioned above by DN27ND. It's referred to in the first collapsed section as being an article about one of Bunasawa's teen students using judo in self-defense against an assault. It's another one behind a paywall, but it's as follows: "Youth Says Judo 'Saved Life'". The Tustin News. May 27, 1982. p. 19 – via Newspapers.com. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I was able to find one of the sources mentioned above by DN27ND, but it's behind a paywall. Being behind a paywall doesn't mean it can't be used per WP:PAYWALL, but it does make it harder to verify.The source is as follows: "New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975 – via NewspaperArchive.In addition, I was able to find some other stuff: this 2002 article in the Los Angeles Times is about Bunaswa being a local business owner representing a group involved in a zoning dispute with the City of Costa Mesa that mentions he owns Judo Journal; this is 2017 The Freeman article is about Bunaswa teaching a seminar in the Philippines and describes him as "legendary"; this describes Bunaswa being inducted into a "Masters Hall of Fame" in 2000; this is a 1996 The New York Times article quotes Bunaswa about the performance of the Japanese men's judo team at the 1996 Summer Olympics as refers to him as the publisher of Judo Journal; and this June 1977 issue of Black Belt magazine has a picture of Bunasawa and states he was a "former All-Japan Collegiate Judo Champion" as part of a larger article about someone or something else, If you Google Bunasawa, you'll get lots of hits to various YouTube videos and other stuff, but I'm not sure how much of it rises to the level generally needed per WP:SIGCOV and how much is just trivial stuff as defined by the Wikipedia community.Many of the sources mentioned above by DN27ND like Rogers Daily News, Orange County Register and Indiana Evening Gazette are newspapers per se, but they seem to be more local/county publications with limited subscription bases that cater specifically to their particular areas. They might do lots of features on local residents or local businesses just because that's part of the niche they're trying to carve out. Such sources don't immediately jump out (in my opinion) as being significnt coverage. Finally, I don't think a valid claim of notability for Bunasawa can be made per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACTOR
- Edgar Chibaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
should be deleted due to the lack of significant independent coverage that meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG), relying instead on primary sources, company related news and not significant mentions. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or redirect: to Nyasa Times, the company that the subject found. Subject has enough WP:GNG. For example here reported by the Telegraph, subject won the Black British Business Person of the Year award in 2021. I also found this where subject is being the founder and the Chief Executive Officer of Malawi's leading online publication, the Nyasa Times that he found in 2006. This could be used to sustain the article per (WP:NEXIST). --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete interviews are a poor way to establish notability and if he owns the Nyasa Times then it isn't independent enough to establish notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle Alternatively, it makes sense to redirect it to their company on Wikipedia that the subject found, thus Nyasa Times. Again, not all sources are interviews. Furthermore, this AfD was made by someone at random who was even reported at ANI here and there is even a discussion on their talk page about their nominations. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't oppose a redirect. I looked at the references now. I presumed the sources you mentioned were the strongest sources. The strongest source appears to be the Yorkshire Evening Post but it isn't enough for notability in my opinion. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle did you happen to look at the Telegraph source I linked in my !vote? It’s comparable to the Evening Post as SIGCOV in my view. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see it now, but I don't think it's sufficiently independent here: 'The annual event, for which The Telegraph is a media partner'. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dagnabbit, didn’t see that on my first read. Switching my !vote now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see it now, but I don't think it's sufficiently independent here: 'The annual event, for which The Telegraph is a media partner'. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle did you happen to look at the Telegraph source I linked in my !vote? It’s comparable to the Evening Post as SIGCOV in my view. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't oppose a redirect. I looked at the references now. I presumed the sources you mentioned were the strongest sources. The strongest source appears to be the Yorkshire Evening Post but it isn't enough for notability in my opinion. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle Alternatively, it makes sense to redirect it to their company on Wikipedia that the subject found, thus Nyasa Times. Again, not all sources are interviews. Furthermore, this AfD was made by someone at random who was even reported at ANI here and there is even a discussion on their talk page about their nominations. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*Week keep. The Yorkshire Evening Post and Daily Telegraph profiles bring it just over the line of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources for a WP:GNG pass. I would oppose a redirect; I think the Nyasa Times may be less notable than its founder. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. I'd like to close this as a Redirect but there is strong opposition to that outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The Telegraph source I linked in my struck !vote above is insufficiently independent, which leaves a single instance of SIGCOV. I cannot find evidence of the Nyasa Times’ notability and may bring that page to AfD in the near future, but if others wish to redirect there for now, I won’t oppose it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Subject of the article has enough WP:SIGCOV to barely establish notability [1] [2] Silvymaro (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I thought so too at first, but see the discussion above about the lack of independence in the Telegraph piece. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Drunvalo Melchizedek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's regrettable that this page has remained on Wikipedia for so long. It relies exclusively on primary sources and blog posts. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There are no serious reviews of his self published books. Consensus was deletion after a previous nomination in 2012. Not much has changed. He might be well known in New Age pseudoscience circles but there is nothing of substance for a Wikipedia page. Ynsfial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, and North America. Ynsfial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The AFD is inaccurate as this is not the same page from 2012. It was recreated from scratch with available info in 2019. Also, the AFD does not actually give any specific grounds for deletion except what sounds like personal disdain, which WP needs to be above. In fact, the deletion submission itself admits topical notability. Whether said topical area is bad or good is not relevant to encyclopedic inclusion. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 12:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- You need to give my AFD a second read. My specific grounds for deletion are clearly stated. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, which I determined after checking for coverage of him online. Second of all, as an author and researcher, his work lacks serious reviews, though I recognize this is just one aspect of author notability criteria that he fails to meet. He doesn't seem to meet the others either. I'm not sure what you mean about topical notability. A TikToker every other teen is familiar with is well known to many people. But if there isn't much serious coverage of them they aren't encyclopedically notable. If you believe he meets the notability criteria, please provide a few credible sources this.Ynsfial (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- My first inclination would be WP:AUTHOR, in that, at least in his field (however dubious), he is considered a significant figure. This is rather bolstered, I would say, by the number of the independent secondary sources already cited. Additionally, that his work has been the inspiration for notable artists as diverse as Tool and Willow Smith lends some amount of significant influence. But again, even your nomination concedes that "he might be well known in New Age... circles" which would seem to render the question moot; even you're not entirely certain of his non-notability, which I still think shoots significant holes through any WP:NN argument.
- As for WP:RS, I would point to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Parity_of_sources:
- Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well.
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out the guideline concerning parity of sources. Please provide 3 of the independent secondary sources cited that you think best establish notability and we can discuss it from there.Ynsfial (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- You need to give my AFD a second read. My specific grounds for deletion are clearly stated. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, which I determined after checking for coverage of him online. Second of all, as an author and researcher, his work lacks serious reviews, though I recognize this is just one aspect of author notability criteria that he fails to meet. He doesn't seem to meet the others either. I'm not sure what you mean about topical notability. A TikToker every other teen is familiar with is well known to many people. But if there isn't much serious coverage of them they aren't encyclopedically notable. If you believe he meets the notability criteria, please provide a few credible sources this.Ynsfial (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RS - I don’t see a single reliable source, unless you consider Jezebel to be reliable. This is in no was close to passing notability. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fiona Krautil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as sources are either not reliable or not providing sufficient support to meet WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources do you think are not reliable?LPascal (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the available sources don't demonstrate GNG here. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is important enough. Also there are more good references available to add to this article. Here is one: "Fiona Krautil produced a discussion pack on ‘What gets in the way of Women’s Advancement?’ for discussion at the Talent Council and the Succession Council, both of which exist to identify and develop high potential people." [25] Rockycape (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep The article is important but needs more improvements with references and details. my opinion is to keep the article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Imre Vallyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.
In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and New Zealand. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep has enough to meet WP:GNG. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate how it has enough to meet WP:GNG?Ynsfial (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment for Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the deletion review process if you consider there is an issue. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Thank you.Ynsfial (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- ’’’Keep’’’ He’s a convicted pedophile. Where’s the good in deleting this? Meets WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:E9F:8340:51A7:F4CD:CE5C:4B8B (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate how it has enough to meet WP:GNG?Ynsfial (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as thin as it is, the media coverage in New Zealand and the Netherlands establishes WP:GNG in my opinion. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Looks like an attempt to delete the history to me. It happened before that talented people did crimes (Roman Polansky etc.) and encyclopedia must show the good and the bad. There had been "no consensus" discussion before and my position here is that the person is a notable author and notable criminal and convicted felon at the same time. Also, I see it as a strange attempt from another editor and I have COI concerns here. If the page stays, I suggest to monitor it carefully for any future attempts to delete the historical record.--Saul McGill (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. I don't think the Dutch NOS article mentioned above provides significant enough coverage. I'd say awards won aren't enough for notability, but this might be worth looking into further. @Saul McGill:, I don't see how he fulfills WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:AUTHOR. He fails all the criteria for both. Mooonswimmer 01:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The key points to ponder include:
1. Is Vallyon notable as an author? Only a few reliable sources have covered Vallyon’s works. Thus, he is not notable under WP:GNG.
2. Is Vallyon a notable criminal? Vallyon also fails WP:PERPETRATOR. A criminal is only notable if the media in many countries have covered their crimes or if the crimes were historic or major. There has been coverage of his legal issues, but it may not be enough to meet these standards.
3. Is there reliable coverage? To strengthen the argument, we rely on you, the editors and contributors, to provide sources that can offer an in-depth study of Vallyon’s life and work or his crimes.
4. Is there community consensus? The ongoing debate and non-consensus closure of previous discussions highlight the urgency of a closer review of the sources and arguments, mainly regarding their differing viewpoints. Everyone's input is crucial in this process.
In short, the coverage does not explore his works or crimes. If the consensus favors retention due to his criminal history, the article must meet WP:BLP. It is our collective duty to ensure that it remains neutral and relies on proper sources.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
AstridMitch, I struggled to follow your logic, to be honest. For example, per WP:PERPETRATOR, his crimes were covered in New Zealand and Germany, which constitutes international media coverage. Additionally, he has followers and organized groups in many countries, indicating an impact that clearly extends beyond one region or even country. Moreover, the "no consensus" closure doesn't highlight any urgency as you incorrectly claimed. This is simply not true and there is no urgency here unless it may be urgent for you. Regarding the reliable coverage argument, I didn't understand your point. Overall, your comment resembles an emotional appeal to editors' collective consciousness (also beyond my logic in terms of Wikipedia's rules) rather than providing clear arguments.--50.46.167.81 (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep
In addition to being a prolific and frequently published writer who meets WP:GNG, he is notable as a spiritual influencer or "cult leader" (arguably) with large groups of followers in several countries. He wouldn't have been covered by major media outlets in New Zealand and Europe if he were just a child molester. The point is that he was active as a philosopher and "school leader" who organized large international groups of followers, which then caught media attention. They described him as an influencer, a child molester, and a convicted felon. Therefore, I suggest adding "spiritual influencer" or "Spiritual teacher" to the definition, as supported by sources on his page. 50.46.167.81 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- ’’’Strong keep’’’: The coverage in the Stuff article clearly establishes [[WP
]]. He has published many books and ebooks. He was found guilty of the crimes, and I suspect that someone is trying to remove this site from Wikipedia because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.227.56.207 (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia needs Multiple not only one. TheChronikler7 (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:AUTHOR, most of the books published by Sounding-Light Publishing, which is owned by Imre Vallyon. See [26] TheChronikler7 (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails all notability guidelines, and there are three Keep comments from IPs; hopefully it's a WP:COI. Faizi Dehlvi (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, I'm seeing No consensus just like the last AFD in May 2024.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Faizi Dehlvi, I edit from IP and this is allowed by Wikipedia. If all you can write is that fails "all notability guidelines" and accuse someone of COI, then I have similar concerns about you. As a matter of fact, one of the "users" was a paid editor here and was blocked for sockpuppeteering. The problem is that you came here with no arguments behind your opinion and started with non-constructive claims 50.46.167.81 (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The award implies notability; the Stuff article seems like a RS. with the rest of the sourcing, can easily establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- One book review published in a newspaper [27] but it seems to be a copy from a blog, so take it with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The book is published by Sounding-Light Publishing, which is owned by Imre Vallyon see This. Do you still consider it Good enough? TheChronikler7 (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe not. On the whole, I think we still have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- The book is published by Sounding-Light Publishing, which is owned by Imre Vallyon see This. Do you still consider it Good enough? TheChronikler7 (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- One book review published in a newspaper [27] but it seems to be a copy from a blog, so take it with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: The case for Vallyon is barely passing for notability in my opinion. His actions were covered internationally in New Zealand and the Netherlands, which establishes WP:CRIME, and he has enough secondary sourcing. Additional comment: noting that a blocked sockpuppet editor AstridMitch was an active contributor to this case, which suggests a targeted action. Silvymaro (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Silvymaro, I would not take their participation as targeted, they participated in quite a lot of AFDs on many different topics. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Authors proposed deletions
- Nazareth Hassan (via WP:PROD on 9 October 2023)