Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 9: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2021 Joe Biden speech to joint session of Congress}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nardo Zalko}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nardo Zalko}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Sie}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Sie}}

Revision as of 07:54, 9 February 2021

< February 08 February 10 >

Purge server cache

2021 Joe Biden speech to joint session of Congress

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

The result was Draftify It is not absolutely certain that this event will take place in any particular form (ie, as an official SOTU, etc.), and therefore this violates WP:CRYSTAL per consensus. Personally, I would wait until at least a hard date is announced before moving this back to mainspace, but in the meantime it should not remain as a published article. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


2021 Joe Biden speech to joint session of Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Speaker has not sent an invitation to the President to address the Congress. The sole citation is to an AP calendar which anticipates that a speech is upcoming, but it is not confirmed. The Constitution does not mandate that a speech to a joint session occur in February, I can find no other sources to confirm this speech will occur. The page originator is unwilling to note that the date is undetermined and given that it may not happen at all the existence of the article in general seems presumptive. ShepTalk 07:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to the Washington Post (among others news outlets), there will in fact be a Biden address to congress on February 23. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide the URLs to this Washington Post source and other sources so they can be added to the article? 66.234.210.119 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fails crystal ball regulations. There may be a speech, that may be notable, but until we have reliable sources covering the actual speech enough to show notability we should not have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and lack of reliable sources other than the AP calendar entry, which states that the date is unconfirmed. — csc-1 21:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft, until it happens. BD2412 T 21:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draft as it is less than two weeks away. 66.234.210.119 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, date is unknown (as can be seen in the last question at today's press briefing) and due to covid may end up in a different form Empire3131 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guarantee you in two weeks this article will be fleshed out and this deletion nomination will be forgotten. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two weeks... Richard75 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a source, but also just a little WP:IAR here. This is going to happen, even if the exact details aren't known yet. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This is a highly-anticipated speech with at least the level of hype/coverage that a regular SOTU gets. A ton of articles discussing Biden's plans broadly mention an expectation that Biden's agenda will be fleshed out during this speech. For SOTUs, we always set up the page as anticipation for the event grows. If this was the 2022 SOTU which no sources are discussing yet, I would absolutely support deletion. But this article is already receiving wide coverage. WP:CRYSTAL is about events whose importance can not yet be definitively ascertained and which have not yet been widely covered, or which are not certain to happen; this event will almost certainly happen, be extremely important, and has already received significant mention. PrairieKid (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above, this is routine speech that is de-facto the first State of the Union Address, it is not WP:CRYSTAL because it will happen. It is no different than 2024 United States presidential election which we know is going to happen in 2024. Based off of the fact that the past 3 first Joint Sessions of Congress for new Presidents have taken place during the last week of February, this date checks out. Given that is almost March now, I would support a Move to 2021 Joe Biden speech to joint session of Congress. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Also, people's cable box schedules are now showing an entry for the address on PBS, and surely other networks will follow suit. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you provide the URLs to the Washington Post source and other sources so they can be added to the article? 66.234.210.119 (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Today's press briefing: "MS. PSAKI: We don’t know where the February 23rd date came from. It’s a great mystery. I’ve not Nancy Drew-ed that one out yet, but it was never planned to be in February and we don’t have a date for a joint session at this point." https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/02/16/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-february-16-2021/Empire3131 (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until more details are announced. Natg 19 (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Can be moved back to the "live" wikipedia when it happens. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks the like speech might actually take place in March (1; 2; 3). Ironically, however, all the commentary about the speech possibly not happening until then kind of proves the notability of the speech. In any event, if it takes place in March rather than February, the article can just be renamed. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of the page, I don't have a problem renaming the page (a page move), but I'd rather wait until the date is set. Taking the month "February" out of the title for now isn't going to help much when I will eventually need to add the word "March" before long anyway. Why end up changing the name twice when it only has to be changed once? So, as opposed to changing it now and changing it again in a few weeks, I'd rather change it only in a few weeks when March gets here. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnsmith2116, the idea is to remove any month from the article title, and only add it back in if there is a second speech to a joint session of Congress this year. For instance, if Biden ends up having another such speech in September, then at that point, "March" would be added to the title here. How does that sound? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide the URLs to the Washington Post source and other sources so they can be added to the article? 66.234.210.119 (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no mention of the 2021 "State of the Union" because this isn't a state of the union (otherwise it would be at 2021 State of the Union Address. Instead, it's a speech to a joint session of congress. Search the transcript for "joint" and you'll find the discussion. Empire3131 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly moved to 2021 Joe Biden speech to joint session of Congress because the February part is both denied and extremely unlikely. This should not effect deletion discussion. --eduardog3000 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still propose a further move to 2021 unofficial State of the Union Address. --eduardog3000 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JayJay, but move to 2021 Joe Biden speech to joint session of Congress per Empire3131. Clearly notable, clearly not a RS or WP:CRYSTAL violation. Also, Imma need a source on "Donald John Trump is still President". - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: something that hasn't happened yet, and hasn't even been scheduled, doesn't deserve an article. It's just something someone said in a press conference; it's just a glint in Biden's eye. It totally violates the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy, and there's no way of knowing how important or notable it might (or might not) be. Richard75 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Move to mainspace once confirmed, and more details are announced. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 00:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Draftify - Violates WP:CRYSTAL. CaliIndie (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nardo Zalko

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

Doesn't pass GNG Pipsally (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Per WP:AUTHOR. One of the greatest historians of tango and one of the few (if not the only) to approach the issue of the development of tango in Paris in the early 20 century per cited sources. The article still lacks a satisfying number of citations, however, but this is no enough reason to delete this bio--Darius (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure he does pass WP:AUTHOR asnd soem of these sources for notability need to be found, because the current ones are thin, and seemingly mostly just mentions, or an Amazon page for goodness sake.Pipsally (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zalko's biography largerly fulfils criteria 2 and 3 of WP:AUTHOR. Julio Nudler, a prestigious Argentine journalist, considered Zalko the first to study in depth the evolution of tango in Paris (point 2); Zalko's work was also the main subject of at least two films, Paris, le tango et Buenos Aires and Nardo Zalko. Paris-Buenos Aires. Un siècle de Tango (point 3). Hardly mere passing mentions.----Darius (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point one. Provide a source. point 2 movie shorts that aren't actually about him in the first case. Point 3 they are largely passing mentions in the source currently cited in the page.Pipsally (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards", reads section "Additional criteria", so even, to say, criterion 2 is by itself enough. BTW, the second documentary is clearly about Zalko and his work.----Darius (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep He gets more than a few hits in Google Scholar as an author and as a mention in a few articles. He's written books on the subject but not sure how important they are. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, discussion participants -- I'm the person who composed and posted the article now under discussion. Following your comments, I would like to state and emphasize that within the narrow field of tango scholarship, Zalko is indeed considered an important figure. I've done several things with the article recently, which include: [1] adding sources to demonstrate that Zalko is in fact a respected tango expert who's cited by researchers and scholars (with citations appearing books, articles, papers, MA and Ph.D. theses, websites and even Wikipedia articles; [2] describing his most important book (Paris-Buenos Aires: 100 Years of Tango in French and Spanish) in more detail to emphasize its contribution to the field of tango. -- and I'd like to add here that I found several Wikipedia articles in which he was referenced: that of César Stroscio (in which all 8 of the footnotes are sourced to Zalko's book) and those of Alberto Neuman (article in French), Alberto Neuman (article in Spanish). I'm rather new on WP and would like to thank all those who have added and formatted the article. I would appreciate it if you would recommend leaving the article up since I think it's been demonstrated that it has value and that its subject is notable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebbieOrigami (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes the relevant SNG, which is explicitly designed for people who are successful within a niche that may be small enough to jeopardize GNG. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and Vaticidalprophet. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sie

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

Doesn't pass GNG Pipsally (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thieves in Black

AfDs for this article:
Thieves in Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose this article should be deleted and worked into the Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei as the only individual identified in this article has been charged as a member of this group. The intersection between these groups is hazy to me though outside of Dimitrakis so I certainly would like someone with a better understanding of the subject and of Wikipedia to take a look. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was some coverage in the Greek media on the actions of the so-called "ληστές με τα μαύρα" (= Robbers [not Thieves] in Black). But it looks like it never went beyond the presentation of similar newsfeed, and that the term "Robbers in Black" was somehow loosely in use by the Greek police and the media to connect several incidents. Writing on this "gang" (if there was a formal one) is pretty much original research. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this is a formal gang and te 'robbers/thieves in black' is a media invention to refer to some of the many active anarchist groups and teams in the area. Unfortunately though this is also original research but it is worth noting that this 'gang' does not turn up in any of the literature I have outside of a few news articles. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I was ready to say delete, but then I went deeper in Greek sources. There is a fair amount on the case against Symeon Seisidis, Mario Seisidis, Grigoris Tsironis, and Dimitrakis[1]. It appears the case went cold in 2010 (I can't tell from the machine translation)? It appears to be more than routine news/robbery since, "From 2002 to 2006, they committed seven robberies with a total booty of about 700,000 euros."[2] Alternatively, the article might be better centered around the armed robbery of the Solonos Street national bank.[3] I could be swayed by someone more familiar with the Greek sourcing but it's hard to say it lacks significant coverage after this and the above sources. Here's 2019 coverage, for proof of endurance, though unsure of source reliability. czar 19:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that this was a pure media invention, weaving a narrative through several disparate anarchist robberies but after seeing the above comments, namely Czar's, I agree with them, also looking forward to someone with a closer understanding of the material taking a look, this subject even does not get much say in the obscure en and es blogs I know of. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Manuel

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

Doesn't seem to pass GNG or WP:ENT. Essentially a promo paage maintained by an SPA. Pipsally (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pipsally, we can see that it's not a well written article but are we sure he fails GNG?[4] • Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks, I can use Google too, which is why he's AfD'd. There's no evidence of real notability.Pipsally (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 17:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York

Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable company. Fails WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can find more about the building than the company, but I'm not sure either is notable. No NRHP listing for the building, the company is old but just seems to be chugging along. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the building is a contributing member of the Court Street Historic District (Binghamton, New York), which affords the building the same distinction of significance (and the associated benefits) as an individual listing. NHRP supporting documentation Vmanjr (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Baker, William (December 1974). A History of the Security Mutual Life Insurance Company, 1985–1971 (Thesis). University of Nebraska. pp. 1–267. ProQuest 302800101. Retrieved 2021-02-14.

      This is a 267-page thesis that covers the company's history in substantial detail.. The document notes: "A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College in the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department  of Economics Under the Supervision of Professor Charles J.  Kennedy"

    2. Poltenson, Norman (2014-01-03). "Security Mutual Life is accelerating growth". Central New York Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14.

      The article notes:

      On Nov. 13, 1886, Charles M. Turner founded the Security Mutual Life Association with eight local businessmen. Unlike a stock company, a mutual insurance institution is owned by the insured persons who become company members and are entitled to indemnification in the event of loss. On Jan. 3 of the following year,  Security Mutual opened for business at 86 Court St. in downtown Binghamton.

      The first customer was Charles E. Tichener, the founder of Tichener Iron Works in Binghamton. Tichener bought a one-year, renewable-term policy naming his wife as the beneficiary, which in the event of his death paid the widow $1,000. Security Mutual pocketed $38.06 in premiums on its first day of business. Within six months, the company had collected nearly $5,000 in premiums with $650,000 of insurance in force. By the end of that year, revenue hit the $15,000 mark with more than $1 million of life insurance in force.

    3. "Insurance. The Rates Charged by the New Binghamton Co-operative and Their Consequences". The Independent, Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, Literature, and the Arts. Vol. 39, no. 2036. 1887-12-08. p. 24. ProQuest 90387796. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14 – via ProQuest.

      The article was published in 1887 so is in the public domain. The article notes:

      In The Independent of last week we gave an analysis of the contract of an association calling itself "The Security Mutual Life Association of Binghamton, N.Y.," showing conclusively that no real insurance was granted by the contract. We now propose to show how utterly absurd it would be even to give insurance under the rates charged. ... Business men must necessarily think twice before such trash as this is substituted for genuine Life Insurance.

    4. Legrande, J. C.; Culberson, H. L.; Cary, H. E. (1899-12-07). "Strong Life Insurance Combination: The Bankers Guarantee Fund Life Association of Atlanta and the Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of Binghamton, New York Unite Interests and Forces". The Atlanta Constitution. ProQuest 495552363. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14 – via ProQuest.
    5. "Security Mutual Life Celebrating Golden Jubilee". The Jewish Advocate. 1937-03-12. ProQuest 870897508. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14 – via ProQuest.
    6. "Insurance: Is This Life Insurance?". The Independent, Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, Literature, and the Arts. Vol. 39, no. 2035. 1887-12-01. ProQuest 90409381. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14 – via ProQuest.

      The article was published in 1887 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "One of the recent organizations which is being pressed as something new and wonderful is the "Security Mutual Life Association of Binghamton, N. Y." It is dressed up with new clothes, but it is a co-operative, and nothing else. It does not appear in the reports of the New York Insurance Department, because it is not old enough. But it has circulars, making all sorts of claims, and a large piece of bond paper printed on both sides, which it calls a policy.

    7. "Insurance: Open to Questions". The Independent, Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, Literature, and the Arts. Vol. 50, no. 2604. 1898-10-27. ProQuest 90515959. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14 – via ProQuest]].

      The article was published in 1898 so is in the public domain. The article notes: "The Security Mutual Life Association, of Binghamton, is an assessment society which has changed its name from "association" to "company," under the very peculiar general act of last March, and has now an office in this city, under charge of M. D. Moss, whose former contract with the Mutual Reserve is cited as in part leading to the present internal dissensions in that society."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the new sources above, should be kept as it is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks a lot, Cunard! I was on the fence before, but I believe that there is enough notability for the company to justify the article. Vmanjr (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspeed Aviation

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

Mostly pr sources, fails WP:SIGCOV Setreis (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this company does indeed fail WP:NCORP despite the questionable nature of this nomination. No concrete coverage found. MER-C 15:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks coverage from multiple, independent sources which is clearly required in order to pass WP:NCORP Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R.S.Venkat Ratnam

R.S.Venkat Ratnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. The linked source is an obituary, not sure why but it is published a month before his death. His son is a pretty notable spiritual leader in India though - Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader). Daiyusha (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri andrade

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

This would appear to fail WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not news, and this man is "a low-profile individual" who received coverage "only in the context of a single event." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this meets any speedy deletion criteria. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 05:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this appears to have been some sort of publicity stunt, I don't think we should even leave a redirect behind. The last thing anyone should want is to see desperate attempts for attention like this one "succeeding," on any level. Better to remove all trace of it from Wikipedia entirely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not our judgement, imo. For whatever reason it was done, there are reliable sources that discuss it. As I believe you said in a previous deletion discussion, redirects are cheap. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 06:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. As per above fails WP:GNG, WP:BLPCRIME and more. Setreis (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he got major coverage in the news. All the major media have written about him, so he meets Wikipedia guidelines for having significant coverage. Jaxarnolds (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaxarnolds: Please read WP:BLP1E. SK2242 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am updating my vote to REDIRECT and have added a section here Super_Bowl_LV#Streaking_incident.New vote will be below.Jaxarnolds (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only known for an event that lasted a few seconds. Keeping the name would serve no encyclopedic purpose, and there is a criminal case issue.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GNG, BLP1e, BLP-CRIME. Momentary fame of this sort is not the same as notability, it's marketing. Non-encyclopedic event. GenQuest "scribble" 12:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This content belongs in the main Super Bowl LV article, not as an article on its own. Threedotshk (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E. SK2242 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is he not important, his purpose was to get attention for reckless and irresponsible behavior which having the metaphorical historical plaque of a Wikipedia page would only further incentivize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson Hamilton (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stated for all reasons above, clearly just a one-time notability event that can exist just fine within the confines of the main article. GNG fails for the individual. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up note, I think a WP:SNOW close may be in order here. There's no chance of this going any further. My two cents. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A snow close isn't appropriate given the possibilities of redirecting or merging (especially given that the last two !votes are not to delete). Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Vogel

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone wants this undeleted and moved to their userspace so they can continue to work on it, please let me know. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Travelers to the Ottoman Empire

Travelers to the Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a reasonable topic for a list article. Many thousands of people visited the Ottoman Empire over its 500 years; the article lists 10, one of whom was born after the polity ceased to exist. Not defining or unusual in any way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the person listed here who was born in 1940 had really visited the Ottoman Empire (which ended in 1922), she ought to be listed in Category:Time travelers as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete considering that for hundreds of years both Greece and what is now Israel were in the Ottoman Empire, and that much of what was ancient Greece is in modern Turkey, this was one of the most popular places to travel by Europeans. It also seems odd we only have European travelers on the list, and not American, Indian (consider that at times Mecca was under the Ottoman Empire), Latin American and so forth. Also consider that If yoyu lived in parts of the Austrian Empire or Russian Empire taveling to the Ottoman Empire was not always that big a deal period. Oh, and the Ottoman Empire also included Egypt at least until end of the 18th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just realized all the people currently on the list are women. Considering one of them seems to have many traveled to the Ottoman Empire with her more famous traveler husband, this seems odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see why this is notable enough for a standalone list. Should we have a list of people who travel to every country/region? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually don’t find the topic all that unreasonable, as travelers’ journals are often cited in early history, but I changed my mind when I saw that the list is short and entirely 19th century. If there are further problems with the facts, by all means, kill it with fire, but I would vote differently if we were talking about 16th century Algeria, fyi, for example. And no, of course we can’t do an exhaustive list, but travel journals are rare for certain periods. For instance, much of what we know about early Central Asia seems to be based on Chinese and European travelers. In other words, I agree in this instance but disagree with it becoming policy Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conceptually nonsensical. Tiny sample of the many who visited, and with no interesting or even meaningful common denominator between them (that I can detect, at least). Therefore doesn't work as a list, and doesn't offer any particular insights. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep This article, in its current state, is basically worthless. However, it might be salvaged if we turn it into a description of major travels (such as the ones of T. E. Lawrence, Gertrude Bell etc. during the later period) which were influential either in the inner settings of the Ottoman Empire, or in the outer world by exporting Ottoman ideas. Of course, it cannot and should not list every person travelling to the Empire, but notable exchanges of ideas could be described more thoroughly. For this, we could have a division of the article in sections corresponding to major events/periods in which the exchanges between the Ottomans and the rest of the world had a decisive impact on either. ProbablyNovarian (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited my judgement, as I found a way to start improving the article ProbablyNovarian (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Benancio, California

San Benancio, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has a peculiar history, to say the least, and it was put up for speedy deletion early on. The GNIS link, for a long time, pointed to a nearby subdivision; searching GNIS gives two hits for the canyon/gulch and one for a middle school, but no "populated place". The topos consistently show the canyon/gulch label when they have anything at all, and while there is always something of a smear of buildings down the canyon, nothing says it's a separate community. It seems to be a locale, not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see comments on Talk:San Benancio, California from article creator. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently a distinct settlement containing numerous dwellings and a school. The US Government describes it here as a small community, and here as a community. ----Pontificalibus 09:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the Night

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

The article only has 3 sources that barley talk about the song. The rest of the sources are album reviews. It should be redirected to its parent album. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Though not enough standalone information regarding the song's music and lyrics, it does have an extent of notability, as it was its artist's first Billboard Hot 100 top-10 hit [5] and was certified in four countries (as cited in the article). It was also included in LA Times year-end list. HĐ (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: HĐ makes good points. We should keep the article. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any single that makes the top ten of the Billboard Hot 100 is qualified to have an article. This nomination seems to be more a case of a contributor engaging in a self-deleting fit of pique over some other slight than a judgement about the article itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NMUSIC criterion number two since it has "appeared on any country's national music chart." The Billboard Hot 100 is a recommended chart per WP:CHART. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also meets NMUSIC criterion no. 3, having been certified as platinum. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The song charted in several countries and has multiple reliable sources. That said, the article easily passes WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it passes WP:NSINGLE. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. TheSkinsAdded (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a loose consensus that this article meets WP:NSONG. While there is some support for merging the article based on inadequate sourcing, arguments in favor of keeping the article suggest that coverage of the song and its music video (in addition to charting in Canada) is sufficient to establish notability. (non-admin closure) gobonobo + c 14:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War (Pop Smoke song)

War (Pop Smoke song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not too many reliable resources. Article should be redirected after to Meet the Woo 2. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to Meet the Woo 2 Apart from the music video (which receives a few passing-by articles) and the #100 peak on the Canadian charts, there is not enough information for a reasonably detailed article. A short paragraph mentioning this song at Meet the Woo 2 would be sufficient. HĐ (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: 15 sources is a decent number and the song's charting may only be classified as indicating notability per WPN:Songs, but it also has a music video and I would have not passed or even reviewed for GA if I had my doubts. --K. Peake 06:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt if a music video justifies notability.. HĐ (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • HĐ When there are numerous sources discussing the video, it does, especially if for a single. --K. Peake 07:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the content of the "Music video" section, not quite. Single quotations like sweet and simple don't add substance. The staff of SOHH commented that Pop Smoke and Lil Tjay "premiered their new 'War' music video to the masses".[15] Does this even have any meaning to it..? HĐ (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused... Why is nom voting keep on an article they nominated for deletion? HĐ (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • HĐ If you look at the user's edit history, they were clearly going through a period of angst when adding multiple articles for AFD at once. --K. Peake 21:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: the music video received coverage, albeit limited. Heartfox (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the song has received decent coverage for its composition plus a music video was released as well as it charting. --K. Peake 06:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You already wrote "strong keep" and these same arguments above?? Heartfox (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discussion was relisted. --K. Peake 21:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Striking as you can't vote multiple times in an AfD. Relisting is to help determine clearer consensus. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kyle Peake's previous comment. AshMusique (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Walking

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

Not too many reliable resources. Article should be redirected after to Meet the Woo 2. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is enough coverage for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the song may not have charted but the music video indicates notability, plus there are a number of independent sources. I think you are getting a bit carried away here after my previous AFD suggestion. --K. Peake 06:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The song has multiple reliable sources. That said, the article easily passes WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is already a good number of reliable independent sources, so it definitely meets WP:NSINGLE. MC-123 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2021
  • Definite Keep: The coverage on the music video and its inclusion on a list of best rap verses, as well as pieces about the single itself, make its a worthy standalone article without need of merging it into the album article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it stands it has sufficient coverage. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pop Smoke discography. There is no consensus to delete the article, however a redirect will retain the article history if such a time comes when there are sufficient sources to satisfy notability criteria. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100k on a Coupe

100k on a Coupe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not too many reliable resources. Article should be redirected after to Pop Smoke discography The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pop Smoke discography -- Much of the "background" section sounds like trivia. Only two sources for song reviews. This song has not even charted. HĐ (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the song may only have a small number of sources, but the appearance in GTA being mentioned helps constitute notability despite it not charting. --K. Peake 06:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being featured in GTA does not make it inherently notable, I believe. HĐ (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pop Smoke discography a lot of trivia. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kyle Peake. Enough reliably to warrant its own article. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. The sources here are second- or third-tier and being one of hundreds of songs in Grand Theft Auto V doesn't qualify for making this song important enough to warrant its own article. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HĐ and Wasted Time R I added more sources to the article. Lmk if you guys think it's better? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of the same kind of sources really. The essence of the article seems to be that the artists thought it would be a hit and people in the online hip-hop world liked it ... and then it didn't chart anywhere. Kind of odd. That said, I don't have strong feelings about this one, so if it's kept, that's okay with me too. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pop Smoke discography. Not really much here; could be reduced to three sentences in another article or something idk. Heartfox (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if not a lot of sources are independent of the song, they talk about it in good detail rather than just reviews or other fluff. --K. Peake 06:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You already wrote "keep" in bold above. Heartfox (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discussion was relisted. --K. Peake 21:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Striking this as you can't vote multiple times in an AfD. A discussion is relisted to generate a clearer consensus, not to allow editors to reinforce their already expressed opinion (although you're welcome to add followup comments to your original vote). Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bigpencils (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Fallenbaum

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

This article does not seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:RS. Reference 1 is written by the subject, Reference 2 is a broken link with no results on archive, References 3 is closely affiliated/employer of the subject, Reference 4 does not mention the subject and no results turn up when investigating, and Reference 5 was written by the subject. It does not look like there are any references for subject's notability. Searching through google scholar, books, etc does not seem to give any results for notability. Bigpencils (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bigpencils (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC. I have found and added sources, including from the Guardian, Huffpost, and NBCBayArea, that quote Ichikawa for her expert opinion, based on her current role as the Executive Director of the Berkeley Food Institute. I also found two sources related to her high school activism (SFGate and the Berkeley High Jacket) that explore this in-depth. I also added an alumni association profile reference that offers biographical detail that hasn't yet been incorporated into the article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (also added: a San Francisco Chronicle profile, a New York Times reference to work by the Berkeley Food Institute and comments by Ichikawa, and an interview with Eater as an expert with biographical information also discussed) Beccaynr (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't interpret the Guardian, Huffpost, NBCBayArea, New York Times pieces as covering or about Ichikawa, but instead just Ichikawa providing quotes in her capacity as Executive Director of Berkeley Food Institute for the actual subjects of respective pieces. I interpret WP:BASIC meaning of significant coverage as more than providing quotes. If you look at footnote7 of WP:BASIC, I think these quotes can be seen as somewhat trivial to Ishikawa. "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." The subject is not an academic, but I think the rationale behind the notability standard of WP:PROF could apply - "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."
    • The Berkeley High Jacket is a high school paper, and the alumni association profile has no editorial standards, so I don't think they meet WP:RS. The Berkeley Food Institute and Hyphen references are her places of employment, and as such is not independent and does not meet WP:RS. Eating Asian in America, Threads and the NBC News piece were all written by Ichikawa. The San Francisco Chronicle piece is not a profile, but a human interest piece about tiny homes, and I don't see how that contributes to notability. I do think the SFGate and Eater references are good, though I don't know if starting a club in high school rises to the notability standard and the Eater article isn't really about Ichikawa's work or accomplishments. The article has clearly improved greatly with your work. I still believe this does not meet WP:GNG. This is my first time going through this process, so my apologies if my interpretations, tone, syntax or anything else is off. Bigpencils (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your analysis, but I disagree with some of your points. The Berkeley Food Institute is academic because it is part of the University of California, and while its description of Ichikawa cannot be used for notability, it can support content, per WP:BASIC, and her BFI bio outlines past work and education as a policy expert, including at UC Berkeley, as a Fellow at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and her MA in International Relations/Food Policy. Per the WP:PROF guideline, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area," and I appreciate your reference to this guideline as a rationale, because my interpretation of how this criteria relates to notability is informed by the WP:INTERVIEW essay, which states, "The material provided by the interviewee may be [...] secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported." My interpretation is when an independent and reliable source interviews someone as an expert, this is secondary source commentary about expertise that supports the notability of the interviewee as an expert. From this perspective, when Ichikawa is quoted by The Guardian, HuffPost, The New York Times, the NBCBayArea coverage by Melissa Colorado, and Eater, these sources contribute to notability per WP:BASIC when they interview Ichikawa as an expert. Regardless of whether there are sufficient sources to meet the WP:PROF guideline, the non-triviality of Ichikawa's expert opinion supports WP:BASIC, which permits "multiple independent sources [to] be combined to demonstrate notability" - these are not, per footnote 7, "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing," because these are expert opinions.
In addition, with regard to the WP:BIO guideline generally, it states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be [...] "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life," and my interpretation of this guideline is influenced by the essay Subjective importance, which may be one of Wikipedia's best defenses against implicit or intentional bias and discrimination, even when editors operate in good faith, because the essay notes, "The main point of the notability guideline is to provide objective criteria for inclusion rather than subjective criteria such as importance which depend on an individual's perspective on the subject." The essay also states, "Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information." For our discussion, I think this applies to the San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate is the website) coverage of Ichikawa's high school activism to establish an Asian American Studies program, as well as the extensive biographical profile of Ichikawa and her family that is included in the San Francisco Chronicle "tiny home" reporting. Per the notability guidelines, it does not appear to be our role to subjectively judge whether this is important enough to be notable, but instead to objectively examine whether sufficient independent and reliable sources have determined Ichikawa to be 'worthy of notice.' I think that even if notability per WP:PROF is borderline, this additional in-depth coverage further supports WP:BASIC notability. Per WP:HEY, I also appreciate your recognition of the improvements to the article - I would not have been able to do it without the coverage of Ichikawa in multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the response. As for WP:PROF, the guideline states "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Ishikawa has a handful of published quotations from 2015-2021, so I think my point remains that a small number of quotations does not justify notability and thus does not meet notability for WP:PROF. I have not found many (or any) other quotes.
I am new to this, but it does not seem like WP:ESSAYS are guidelines, just suggestions and opinions that a subset of editors may or may not agree with. However, with WP:INTERVIEW, and as context is important, I think the sources fail based off of this test - "Is the main subject of the interview the interviewee's own life or activities (e.g., a film critic interviews a dancer about their upcoming performance) or something else (e.g., a radio host interviews a physician about the advantages of flu shots)?" The Guardian, HuffPost, The New York Times, the NBCBayArea sources seem to fall into the latter category. I also think it is unfair to call these interviews and to use that standard - the subject provided 1-2 sentences in much longer pieces and there are no explicit questions asked. For example, the entirety of Ishikawa's presence in the NBCBayArea piece is "Nina F. Ichikawa agrees. She helps run the Berkeley Food Institute, which studies sustainable food production. "Urban farms are playing a really important role for elders, for low-income families, for immigrants," she said." The section of WP:INTERVIEW about expertise you quote seems to be related to source reliability, not with subject notability. Again, the main subject of these pieces are not Ishikawa, and the articles do not provide any commentary on Ishikawa.
When you are referring to WP:BIO, what you quoted seems very broad/subjective and my understanding is articles still need to follow WP:BASIC subsection criteria. The Subjective importance is interesting, but again is an essay and seems to be dealing with biases associated with keeping articles, not deleting them. I do not think the standard you cite in that essay supersedes the standard of WP:BASIC. I see the San Francisco Chronicle "tiny home" reporting as a human interest reporting, with reliability issues as described in WP:RS/WP:NEWSORG. I appreciate the resources you linked and your explanations. If the article is kept, I agree with your note on the creator's talk page that it should be renamed to Nina Ishikawa. Bigpencils (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CUESA piece added is sponsored, which does not meet WP:RS/WP:SPONSORED. The KQED reference again barely mentions Ichikawa, like many of the other sources. The entirety of her presence is a photo with a caption, and this sentence - "But here at the Burroughs Family Farm is an outpost of what Nina Ichikawa, director of the Berkeley Food Institute at UC Berkeley, describes as “centers of insurrection” spreading slowly but steadily across the Valley — test cases in how to cope with the instability of climate change." This falls into the same category of WP:PROF and Criterion 7 and WP:INTERVIEW issues I had above. Bigpencils (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a quick note, per the WP:PROF guideline, being quoted in conventional media as an expert is what the criteria appears to require, so these quotes do appear to support her notability. If your reasoning about the length of the quotes was applied to WP:PROF, I'm not sure how the guideline would be workable, given how experts are typically quoted in conventional media. For the frequent appearances Ichikawa has made in national and local media since becoming the Executive Director of the Berkeley Food Institute, if they are not sufficient for WP:PROF, then I think they are sufficient to support WP:BASIC, especially in the context of the additional independent and reliable sources. The sources that quote her as an expert also appear to be secondary sources in that regard, per WP:SECONDARY, because "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event," and every source that quotes Ichikawa for her expert opinion is using their own thinking to make the determination that she is an expert, which bolsters the notability of her expertise as a result. I need more time to respond to some of your other points, but I wanted to at least start with this. Beccaynr (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:PROF Criterion 7, "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." It seems to me that Ishikawa has a small number of quotations (~7 between 2015 to 2021), and thus falls short of the notability mark. This guidance seems to fit the situation with Ishikawa. Bigpencils (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point is that the WP:PROF guideline helps show how quotations of an expert, regardless of their length, can support the notability of the expert. The General Notes section of WP:PROF states "It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications. The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus," and I think this helps emphasize how differences of opinion over whether WP:PROF is met is distinct from how quotations of an expert can contribute to notability as a general matter, and for the purposes of assessing notability per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the inclusion of multiple sources where the subject is barely mentioned could be described as WP:PUFFERY, or as put in the essay as a warning sign - "the stilted language resulting when editors stitch together passing references in reliable sources in consecutive sentences to make it appear as if there has been significant independent coverage of the subject". 15:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpencils (talk • contribs)
Comment The WP:PUFFERY essay warns against using "sources that do not specifically mention the subject," which can create WP:SYNTH problems, and suggests this may happen especially with "non-notable garage bands and college bands," or "individuals who have attained a fleeting celebrity for their involvement in a reality TV show or a highly-publicized brush with the law" or "writers, poets, or other creative individuals." I think this helps support how when the subject is quoted as an academic expert, the sources help establish notability per WP:PROF, and I think by extension, WP:BASIC, particularly due the existence of other coverage in independent and reliable sources that help build encyclopedic and biographical content. To circle back to your concern about the San Francisco Chronicle "tiny home" reporting and WP:RS/WP:NEWSORG, this guideline speaks to general concerns and appears to make a broad statement based on a link to a Salon article about one reporter, and a wikilink that includes the same, and then a print media section that does not suggest that just because there is emotional content that the reliability can be questioned. The WP:NEWSORG guideline does state that "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." The San Francisco Chronicle articles do not appear to be making exceptional claims, nor reporting rumors or reprinting press releases; it further appears to be a well-established news outlet that appears to have a solid reputation, even for what might be subjectively determined to be "human interest" reporting (e.g. What the San Francisco Chronicle hopes to accomplish with its first feature documentary, CJR, 2016). I do think you are correct that my use of WP:INTERVIEW has been a bit misplaced, but I hope I have clarified what I was trying to articulate with my explanation above about WP:SECONDARY. My goal has been to discuss the principles and spirit of the policies and guidelines, per WP:5P5. Beccaynr (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your response. Apologies for not signing my previous post. I believe the section that I highlighted in WP:PUFFERY better describes the list of articles where Ishikawa provides only quotes, and disagree that the essay only has to do with "sources that do not specifically mention the subject" as the opening of the essay says one of the issues is "detailed listings of minor biographical details" but I understand that you disagree. I still think Criterion 7 of WP:PROF, "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark", almost perfectly describes the quotes in sources and how that it does not mean the subject is notable as an academic, which is what you claim she is. I also think it misses the mark on WP:BASIC based off the 'significant coverage' requirement as there is very little secondary source analysis of the subject (i.e commentary or analysis of Ishikawa) other than the subject's title. I think we have reached an impasse here as I do not think you have rebutted these claims, but I understand you disagree. While I understand what you are saying about the 'tiny homes' piece, I believe WP:NEWSORG takes issue with the editorial process associated with human interest pieces, and the Salon piece is an example of how human interest pieces do not have the same editorial standards. While the piece may make not make exceptional claims, but the question is whether the piece has the same editorial standards as a hard news piece. I would still question whether it meets WP:RS, but other editors can weigh in.
Can you comment on why you included many sources and did not remove any sources that do not seem to meet WP:RS? For example, the CUESA piece you added is sponsored, the Berkeley High Jacket piece you added is a high school newspaper, and the many sources published by Ishikawa or her employer are not independent. In my judgment, it seems like 10 of the 19 sources do not meet WP:RS for those reasons. Bigpencils (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the WP:NEWSORG criteria, The Berkeley High Jacket has published Editorial Policies that include having an adviser who "Is a journalism teacher that serves as a professional role model, motivator, catalyst for ideas and professionalism, and an educational resource [...] Guides the newspaper staff in accordance with approved editorial policy and aids the educational process related to producing the newspaper [and] [...] will offer advice and instruction, following the Code of Ethics for Advisers established by the Journalism Education Association as well as the Canons of Professional Journalism," and there do not seem to be concerns per the other criteria. As to the piece written and sponsored by the non-profit organization CUESA, I think that can be clarified by editing, but per WP:SQUIRREL, I have been busy with other editing projects, so I have not yet given it my full attention. Beccaynr (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, to address some of your initial and ongoing concerns about references to sources affiliated with Ichikawa, per WP:RSPRIMARY, "specific facts may be taken from primary sources," and per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and that appears to be how these sources are used in the article to help build encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have revised the introduction of the CUESA reference, replaced the broken reference noted in the nom, added a reference from Prevention magazine that quotes Ichikawa as an expert, and added more support for the part of the lead that describes Ichikawa as an 'agricultural activist.' Without counting CUESA, even though it is published in KQED, there are now six independent and reliable sources quoting Ichikawa as an expert, which in field like food policy, seems to help support WP:PROF notability, but also WP:BASIC notability, as noted above. The San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate, and Eater also take note of Ichikawa's personal and family history, which add depth to the article and support her notability as well. Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added another San Francisco Chronicle reference that quotes Ichikawa, a Refinery29 reference that includes a discussion of her essay in Eating Asian America: A Food Studies Reader, an interview with Ichikawa in the International Examiner that helps add chronological detail to her work with AAPI Food Action, and a link to her writing in Al Jazeera America. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the Refinery29 piece and International Examiner piece offer good support for WP:GNG as they have significant second source coverage of the subject, and along with previously mentioned sources seem sufficient. I will withdraw the nomination. Thanks for your work on the article. Bigpencils (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there has been significant work done on the article, here is my analysis of the sources as of revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Fallenbaum&oldid=1006753366:
    1. Berkeley Food Institute: A non-independent source (subject’s employer biography), does not meet WP:RS
    2. NBC Bay Area: Two sentences total with one sentence identifying the subject and one sentence quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
    3. �Huffpost: Two sentences total with one sentence identifying the subject and one sentence quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
    4. The Guardian: Two sentence quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
    5. KQED/CUESA: Sponsored piece with no editorial oversight, does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
    6. KQED: One sentence total identifying subject with quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
    7. Prevention: One sentence total identifying subject with quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
    8. The New York Times: One sentence total identifying subject with quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
    9. Hyphen: A non-independent source (subject’s biography at a previous employer), does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
    10. Civil Eats: A non-independent source (subject’s biography at a website to which she contributes), does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
    11. Discover Nikkei: A non-independent source (subject’s biography at a website to which she contributes), does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
    12. Eater: Four sentences the subject with one sentence identifying the subject's title and employer and three sentences of quotes. Four sentences that directly address subject’s grandfather including one quote by the subject. Direct secondary source commentary about subject is very minor (“She is currently working on a book on the topic, and has contributed a chapter to Eating Asian America: A Food Studies Reader.”) Further direct secondary source commentary is about her grandfather. Seems to meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV of her family.
    13. Eating Asian America: A non-notable book of 20 essays in which subject wrote one. Received no significant coverage. No secondary or tertiary analysis.
    14. Common Dreams: Press release with no other published coverage in press, no editorial standards, does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
    15. AAPI Food Action: A non-independent source (subject listed as part of the team), does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
    16. Kids First Oakland: No mention of the subject, does not meet WP:V. Additionally, A non-independent source that does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
    17. California Farmer Justice Collaborative: A non-independent source (subject listed a member with biography), does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
    18. SF Chronicle: A human interest piece in the style section about multi-generational living and tiny homes, and provides biographical information about Ishikawa. Local coverage only.
    19. Hyphen: Non-notable article written by subject. Additionally, A non-independent source that does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
    20. SF Chronicle: 3 sentence quote about the formation of the Multi-cultural Coalition at Berkeley High School that offers no secondary or tertiary analysis. Perhaps the most significant coverage of subject of all sources as it directly addresses the subject and her work. Local coverage only.
    21. Berkeley High Jacket: High school newspaper article that does not meet WP:RS. Does not have nearly the same editorial standards as a professional newspaper, though it does have a policy page. Local coverage only.
    22. Cal Alumni Association: A non-independent source (subject’s Alma Mater) with no editorial oversight, does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
    23. NBC News: Non-notable article written by subject that does not contribute to WP:GNG. The extent of the subject’s inclusion is a photograph with a caption that identifying subject as author.
Overall, there are 23 sources:
  • 8 of which are from non-independent sources which do not contribute to WP:GNG. One fails [[WP:V].
  • 6 in which the subject provides 1-2 sentences which are predominantly quotes, do not address the subject directly and in detail other than her title and employer, do not meet WP:SIGCOV,
  • 2 non-notable articles written by the subject which do not contribute to WP:GNG
  • 1 sponsored piece that does not have editorial oversight, does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
  • 1 non-notable book source where subject wrote 1 essay in a book of 20 essays, no coverage or secondary analysis of book or essay, does not contribute to WP:GNG
  • 1 article from a high school newspaper that does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
  • 1 press release with no editorial standards that does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
  • 2 pieces of local coverage that meet WP:RS and offer any some semblance of WP:SIGCOV that directly address the subject beyond her title and employer. The SF Chronicle article about tiny home living, and the SFGate article about establishing the Multi-Cultural Coalition at Berkeley High School, though it offers no secondary source commentary or analysis on the subject.
  • 1 source from Eater that meets WP:RS and seems to offer WP:SIGCOV of Ishikawa’s family and her grandfather’s experience in internment/concentration camps. Very little secondary source commentary of the subject herself.

As stated previously, Ishikawa provided quotes in 7 sources over the course of 2015 to present. WP:PROF states “Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.” I believe second sentence perfectly describes the subject providing 7 quotes over the course of 6 years. These sources and quotes do not directly and in detail address Ishikawa other than title and employer of the subject - they are about the actual subjects of the article, and thus do not meet WP:SIGCOV required by WP:GNG.

The three ‘best’ articles that meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV are from Eater, SF Chronicle and SF Gate though it is questionable how in-depth these articles are about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpencils (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Beccaynr. Vikram Vincent 04:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beccaynr. Also note to closing admin, nominator is acting like a single purpose account for participating of activists articles, Sadads (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not true, please do not lie and poison the well. As you can see from my contribution history, I have voted on a handful of AfD's only in various categories. Please refute the guidelines cited. Bigpencils (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Daniel (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence M. Andrews

Terrence M. Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Judgeship nomination was withdrawn, and there's nothing else to justify an article. This is a logical followup to the verdict of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Lam Nguyen. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Joseph L. Barloon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rahkel Bouchet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sharon Goodie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John P. Howard III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stephen A. Kubiatowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grace K. Obermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mark Robbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carl Ezekiel Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vijay Shanker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elizabeth Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and per Reywas92 above. Kolma8 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egg-Stamp (Fabergé egg)

Egg-Stamp (Fabergé egg) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this Fabergé egg seal exists, there is nothing to indicate that it is notable. The only sources I can find with any discussion are auction sites, so this feels promotional. The two Russian sources used in the article don't mention it. (I came across this via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Shiawase-wo_and_Egg-Stamp_%28Faberg%C3%A9_egg%29_article) Fences&Windows 00:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 00:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 00:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've done some substantial rewriting of this to make it clear what is actually being talked about: it's actually a signet stamp in the form of a Faberge egg. No opinion on notability as yet. My assumption would be, though, that it is referred to in English by a different name. Mangoe (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, delete. There is a Finnish source mentioning the object in passing as an example of how Finns were part of the Faberge shop, and because (I gather) the object is in Finland now. But it clearly doesn't enjoy anything like the fame of the imperial eggs, and there are no English sources that I could find. At any rate the current text is terrible and perhaps quite inaccurate. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other than a couple of auction pages I can't find anything to show that this is notable. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how the article establishes notability for a single work of art. Although we don't have a specific notability criteria for objects of art it fails WP:SIGCOV. In general if one has trouble finding sources to support an object's notability than the it likely fails GNG. Blue Riband► 19:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Rob

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Claims to be "Grammy-nominated", but there are no details, and I can't find anything to support it. Even if actually nominated, does that establish notability? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I believe the claim of being "Grammy-nominated" is made on the most tenuous of WP:INHERITED connections... the subject produced just one song out of 16 on Better (Chrisette Michele album), and the album was nominated for Best R&B Album at the 2013 Grammys. But it's the album and the singer that is nominated in that category, not the producer(s), so if that's the highlight of the subject's career (and having done a search, it appears that it is), then there's nothing to show that this person is really notable. Richard3120 (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with both the users above. --CanadianToast (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unusual to see 'Support' in a deletion discussion but it’s clear from the comments what is being argued. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Studman

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

fails NFOOTY and appears to fail GNG, as I could find no SIGCOV of her Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support. Has not played in a fully professional league. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you provide a reliable source that says that the W-League is fully professional, especially prior to 2015? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same as above, Support, Australian W-league is not professional, there for not a played in WP:FPL, contrary to the above. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've considered nominating this one myself before but declined to do so as I always believed that someone with 52 appearances in the W-League must be notable enough. Now that it's up here, I've checked ProQuest and found only trivial mentions. The Football Sack calls her "one of the W-League’s most improved players" but doesn't expand on that. I found a name check in a major newspaper. A listing alongside several other players regarding transfers. Lastly, I found one sentence about her in TWG. I had presumed that there must be enough out there to meet WP:GNG but, from my searches, it appears that that presumption was not valid. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_February_9&oldid=1005757303"