Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:04, 1 April 2022

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 31	April 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maven Research

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

non-notable company - believe it or not, not every org or company nasa does business with is notable or even noteworthy and this doesn't appear to be an exception. CUPIDICAE💕 01:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, California, and New Hampshire. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This mainspace article was created just minutes after Draft:Maven Research was moved to draftspace. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No further discussion has taken place since within the first 2 days of the afd being initiated, 3 weeks ago, thus reaching a consensus seems unlikely. The weight of opinion seems to be more in favour of keeping. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trooper Clerks

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

Non notable fan film. Appears to fail WP: NFILM. Previous nomination resulted in redirect/merge. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not so sure about the non notable. This PhD thesis has a decent-sized paragraph on the film, and there are a number of short mentions in the Google books hits. Unfortunately, I cannot see what's about the film in the essay by Jenkins and the PhD thesis by McDaniel. Can anyone else? Daranios (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the name refers to two things: a live action parody trailer and the animated film based on said trailer. Most of what I'm finding so far looks to be more about the LA trailer, so if the article is kept it should be about both the trailer and the animation. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found it: In addition to the mentioned PhD thesis, there is a short paragraph discussig the film here on p. 468-469/here on p. 169. Together with short mentions like here and here, and with the award it got, I think this film is notable after all. Like ReaderofthePack suggested, I think the trailer and animated films should all be treated here collectively. Daranios (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the award is notable, making the film non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Did you mean notable as used on Wikipedia or notable as in an important award? Anyway, I think in general if a film get's a major award, that in itself makes it notable, but if it does not, that does not make it non-notable. Rather, we get back to the basic criterion of "is talked about in secondary sources", right? Which I think is the case here, just enough to fullfill WP:WHYN. The fact that it got a not-so-major(?) award in my view is just an additional point towards notability. Daranios (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Tsunami: No More Tears

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

Documentary that appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing in a BEFORE convinced me that this is notable. Previous AfD was no consensus in 2015. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no evidence that it addresses the requirements of WP:NFILM. Dan arndt (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This production appears to be popular with viewers and has attracted some commentary online, but the kind of serious coverage from reliable sources that we need for a full article is lacking. Popularity is not notability. I think that deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2022 (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. Upon further consideration, closing as no consensus at this time. Those opining for potential retention of the article have advanced rationales for restructuring, while others have opined for other outcomes, such as keeping if it's structured one way and deleting if it's structured another way. In all of this, not a single direct !vote stating the preferred outcome in bold has been provided, although the nomination hints toward deletion per not meeting WP:NLIST standards, while also stating, "perhaps the content could be redirected or merged". Indeed, this has essentially become a content matter after the two relistings. Additional discussion can occur on the article talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Basketball Association Martin Luther King Jr. Day games

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

On the surface, this seems to go against WP:NLIST. Unlike National Basketball Association Christmas games, which discusses the tradition more broadly, this article seems to be more of an indiscriminate list of routine games. Perhaps the content could be redirected or merged, but this doesn't feel like it deserves it's own article space per NLIST. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the topic and NBA promotions around MLK Day is potentially notable, but the current format of being a list of game results misses the point. Some sources are 1) "How the NBA relaxes its sneaker rules for MLK Day". ESPN.com, 2) "Would Martin Luther King Jr. Love the NBA?". New York, 3) "As NBA prepares to celebrate Martin Luther King, Robertson also remembers". KRON4.com, 4) "Legendary Oscar Robertson Pioneered What Has Become an NBA Tradition of Honoring Martin Luther King Jr." Sportscasting.com, 5) NBA commemorates "MLK Day with games and celebrations". Fox9.com, 6) "The most memorable NBA moments on Martin Luther King Jr. Day". Sporting News. The problem is I see little written from a historical perspective, more about a given year's goings-on.—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Bagumba. I agree with your assessment on this. It may be better suited to expand the historical part of the article and perhaps make navboxes for the decades? Just a thought, but in principle I do agree it's potentially notable as a topic, the article just looks like a classic case of WP:NLIST. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Spf121188: What did you have in mind regarding "navboxes for the decades"?—Bagumba (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the event you were thinking of just collapsing the game list, a relevant guideline is MOS:COLLAPSE:
    If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all.
    I'd say the embedded list should just be removed. The (unsourced) individual games are not that encyclopedic.—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Bagumba, yeah, I think I misrepresented what I was thinking there; collapsing the table would make more sense... but even so, like you said, many individual games are not noteworthy. Mannysoloway below reflects my view on the article as a whole. Borderline WP:TNT, in my opinion. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 12:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm ambivalent on this and deferring to anyone with stronger feelings on keeping, deleting or merging this.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in its current form it should be deleted. If the article could be rewritten to include more actual information about the history of games on this day. Then it should be kept. Mannysoloway (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is going to be kept, it ought to be rewritten to focus on the ceremonies and traditions associated with the NBA playing on Martin Luther King Day, to the extent that is possible to do. The actual games themselves appear to be largely run-of-the-mill regular season games and should probably not all be listed here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A few various ideas have been presented herein. This discussion is worthy of a third relist in hopes of a consensus potentially being formed about how the article should be structured.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...a third relist in hopes of a consensus potentially being formed about how the article should be structured: Seems more like a content issue for the article talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2022 (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 Meg Wolitzer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Interestings

The Interestings – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The Interestings was never picked up for by Amazon Prime. The show only aired a pilot and the page only has three references. The show does not meet wikipedia's standards for notability and should be deleted. Mannysoloway (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meg Wolitzer and very, very selectively merge the content. An author's story getting a TV pilot which received three fairly in-depth reviews from mainstream publications is worth noting in that author's biography. I doubt it needs more than a line or two, though. XOR'easter (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because only the pilot was aired doesn't mean it can't be notable. The pilot has received significant in depth coverage in reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Becker

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG guidelines.

The sources listed here are almost all trivial pulications. Half of them in the article are primary (YouTube, Kickstarter, etc.), while the rest of them are unreliable or unkown. I initally thought that the Huffington Post UK source listed there had decent covarage, but it was just trivial coverage again. The only Forbes source in the article is by a contributor, and notability can't be established there as per WP:FORBESCON. The only citation there that seemed to be reliable and have signifcant covarge is the Wall Street Journal source from 2007, which unfortunately requires a subscription.

There just seems to be no source in the article that is a verified, established publication with significant coverage. I tired looking for some media works and notability about this person, but yet again, all of it was trivial mentions from non-notable websites. Even though the subject is extremely popular on YouTube, this doesn't guarantee an article creation when the media doesn't make it notable elsewhere.

I think the best choice would be to draftify this for now. It could be WP:TOOSOON, and be worked on outside the mainspace. There could be some potential, significant coverage soon, but at the moment I can't find any of the sort. Sparkl^talk 23:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sparkl^talk 23:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sparkl^talk 23:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I worked on the article a bit but it still needs improvement. While it needs more work, that does not negate the fact that the subject was featured in the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post UK, both of which are significant coverage, plus coverage in Forbes, Huffington Post UK and Smithsonian magazine. Passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 14 April 2022 (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.

April Fools nominations

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maven Research}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trooper Clerks (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->