Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 24

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Damiens.rf (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 24 January 2022 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Binger.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 23 January 25 >

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 delete. Tone 23:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Binger

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

Biography for a non-notable playmate (possibly, redirect it to some playboy models list) damiens.rf 18:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it's the same person, she could be included in the Grady Sizemore article, a person with her name married Mr. Sizemore. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not have a personal life section on Mr. Sizemore at present. While he may have married this this Ms. Binger, if all the evidence we have for that "is a person with this same name", instead of "we have a source that says Mr. Sizemore married a woman who had been photographed professionally and included in published magazines", or other wording to indicate a connection other than the same name, we should not go based just on the same name, because if we do we might be creating the Frankenstein's Monster article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a Playmate of the Month is notable in modeling. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite incorrect. Only 3 of the 12 listed in the "Playboy Playmates of 2007" template on her page have articles, and 1 (Tamara Sky) should be an easy deletion next. Being a Playmate may have been a criteria of the old WP:PORNBIO notability guide, but that was deleted ages ago. Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable pinup girl, nothing but the Playboy spread and some gossip mags. Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 27 January 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 keep. Aside from nominator, consensus is GNG met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants Delicatessen

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

Non-notable company. Article does not credibly indicate any basis of notability ('Green' and women-owned?). Fails WP:NCORP. Announcements of branch openings don't contribute towards notability. What coverage there is seems to be PR-based, and local in readership. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). I've written ~40 Good articles about restaurants in Portland, so I'd like to think I have a good understanding of notability criteria and what types of coverage and claims are needed for a quality entry. I agree that the article's current text should be improved to more clearly indicate notability. However, this nomination is NOT an assessment of secondary coverage overall. When I do some online searching, I can see plenty of content to add. In my opinion, we should be able to expand the article with the basic building blocks of a company/restaurant article, based on sourcing: Description, History, Locations, and Reception, focusing on company growth and milestones, operational history (including openings and closures), recognition, etc. Also, asserting coverage is only local is unfair... I see books, magazine, journals, and even plenty to add from The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. The article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator, here's my assessment of the sources as they were as of this edit:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Curb Safe Charmer
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20131109023037/http://1859oregonmagazine.com/restaurant-elephants-deli No Probably provided by the company Yes No A single paragraph listing and the address and opening times of the branches ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=ijt8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT35 Yes Yes ? Three paragraphs in a Portland restaurant guide ? Unknown
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-4689-elephants-on-parade.html Yes Established food critic Yes No Opening of a new branch; local coverage ✘ No
https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2001/03/26/smallb1.html No PR piece, with quotes from the manager Yes Yes decent length article ✘ No
https://pamplinmedia.com/scc/124-business/157812-elephants-deli-opens-on-corbett No Almost entirely quoting the CEO Yes No Opening of a new branch ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/g66l-2019/09/1b695416dc9728/here-are-99-great-places-to-work-in-oregon-and-sw-washington-top-workplaces-2019.html No employers or their employees entered the competition Yes No 99 out of 147 employers who were entered into the competition are listed ✘ No
https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/subscriber-only/2021/09/10/largest-women-owned-businesses.html No "Information was obtained from firm representatives through questionnaires" No "Information ... could not be independently verified by the Portland Business Journal" No To be listed, company just has to be based in Oregon and Clark County, and have more than one woman shareholder ✘ No
https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/rhine-tanzer-inc-15da978791203ea66a06bb50a090324a Yes Yes No Parent company in a listing of companies approved for federal loans ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2012/07/elephants_in_the_park_grill_op.html No Yes No Four short paragraphs on the opening of a new branch ✘ No
https://www.wweek.com/promotions/2020/07/21/food-drink-restaurants/ No Says 'sponsored content' ? No best catering service in a reader's poll ✘ No
https://www.oregonbusiness.com/100best/green/item/19321-2021-100-best-green-workplaces-in-oregon No "Companies interested in entering the survey should contact Kim Moore, research editor ..." Yes No 200 winners out of 422 entrants ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've assessed current sourcing, but not all available sourcing. Searching "Elephants Delicatessen" at the Oregonian archives from 1987 to present at the Multnomah County Library yields 183 results. Searching the "historical" database for 1861 to 1987 yields an additional 97 returns. Also, quite a few things to add from Google Books. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Another Believer, it looks like you've written about 75% of this article. The AfD process is here to evaluate the article that exists, or perhaps the article as it is improved during the process. Sure, if there are available sources that could tip the scales to "clearly notable" that should influence whether an AfD is filed, or failing that, should influence how it's improved to assure a "keep" outcome. But I'm not clear on how a general finding of hundreds of sources, without any evaluation of which, if any, are relevant or useful, contributes to the AfD process. Are you planning to use this information to make substantial improvements to the article during the AfD? Or do you see potential in one or two of the sources to make such improvements, but lack the time to do it yourself in the short term? A hint of what these sources say to you might be helpful here. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you're saying/requesting here, but actually AfD is not only for evaluating the current article. WP:BEFORE asks editors to search for sourcing not in the current article prior to nominating an article for deletion. Perhaps the nominator did so, but I too have done some digging and I disagree with their assessment for the reasons noted above. Honestly?, I don't plan on dropping what I'm working on just to rescue this entry. My life goes on just fine if Elephants Deli doesn't have a Wikipedia article. But, I've written enough of these entries to know there's plenty to use to create a quality Wikipedia entry. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wikipedians don't have access to the Oregonian archives. I do, I looked at a random sample (the most recent of the 183 articles in that archive from each of the decades mentioned) and none was pertinent to the present discussion. Finding a high quality source takes work, and if you feel that more such work is needed, but you are unwilling to do it, to me that sounds like you're leaning toward "delete." (For myself, I don't really have an opinion about whether or not there are enough sources there as of now.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I may not enter a !vote here, but I want to point out several flaws in Curb Safe Charmer's assessment of sources above. The Portland Business Journal is a serious newspaper with strong editorial standards; the presence of quotes from the company's personnel in no way undermines the independence of its coverage. See here for a detailed look at PBJ's editorial practices. Willamette Week is also a serious publication, and its "Best Of..." series is not sponsored content; I do not see that term on the page, and I suspect you may have seen it associated with an ad that ran on the page, rather than referring to the page itself. Oregon Business is also a serious publication, and the article specifically enumerates the methodology of the survey, something that non-journalistic surveys generally do not do; the ability of a company to enter a survey no more corrupts the survey itself than my ability to self-nominate an article for GA or FA undermines the integrity of the GA or FA process. The fact that the Business Journal disclosed that it had not fact-checked company disclosures is a point in favor of its methodology (transparency to readers); if Elephants declared that it had 280 employees at that time, the lack of a rigorous fact-check does not suggest that the number might be completely outlandish. The prevalence of mistaken assumptions about these sources suggests either a lack of familiarity with the field of journalism and its standards, or possibly an agenda of some kind. So this chart, which should be a useful tool for taking a sober look at the sources used, in this instance seems unhelpful for making a decision about this particular article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in here as well, Pete. I am going to step away from this discussion and let others contribute, but I have problems with some of the contents of the nominator's table as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pete Forsyth and Another Believer above. Forsyth makes some valid points about the sourcing. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreed that nominator's assessment/reasoning is lacking. --truflip99 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Perry, Sara (2005-03-06). "Taste makers Elephants on parade to a new location". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "For more than a quarter of a century, Elephants Delicatessen held center ring at the Uptown Shopping Center, it's original small space expanding ever outward as her store's reputation grew as the place for gourmet foods, wines, unusual ingredients and catering, as well as informed advice on any of the above. Tanzer began her deli out of sheer chutzpah. ..."

    2. Johnston, Sonja (2005-05-19). "Elephants Delicatessen's new location hasn't forgotten wedding rehearsals". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The restaurant review notes: "Elephants Delicatessen is known for beautifully prepared and delicious take-out and catered foods, as well as sense of style with French flair. ... The room's wainscoted walls are topped by multi-paned windows with views of leafy green trees. Urns of flowers provide seasonal color."

    3. Russell, Michael (2020-09-12). "Elaine Tanzer, 'visionary' behind Elephants Delicatessen, dies at 77". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "According to Jim Dixon, the reformed food writer-turned-specialty foods guru at Northeast Portland’s Real Good Food, there just “wasn’t much else” in Portland when Elephants hit the scene. “It’s not like today when you can go into Whole Foods or New Seasons or even Fred Meyer and find interesting cheeses,” Dixon said. “You might find an aged white cheddar from Tillamook. But unless you went to a restaurant, unusual things were not widely available.”"

    4. Butler, Grant (2005-04-08). "Dining Elephants Deli's new digs shine". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "I was never particularly taken with the old location of Elephants Delicatessen. It always felt cramped, and while I admired the food, it was strictly a place to grab and go, not sit and enjoy. That changed last month, when the shop moved three blocks east into the enormous digs vacated last year by Il Fornaio restaurant. Now, Elephants feels like a glorious Parisian market, the sort of place where you might sit and enjoy a light meal before dashing off to an afternoon at the Louvre."

    5. Crain, Liz (2014). Food Lover's Guide to Portland. Portland: Hawthorne Books. ISBN 978-0-9904370-1-7. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The book notes: "Elephants Delicatessen has been in business since 1979, and like a good elephant, it's been slowly growing for many years as a PDX catering and food and drink depot. What sets Elephants apart is its ready-make selection. The Northwest Elephants is the largest location by far, with the most diverse offerings. In fact, the Northwest Elephants usually feels like a food festival taste pavilion."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Elephants Delicatessen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:51, 31 January 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. I wrote up a lengthy closing statement, and had it frustratingly erased by an edit-conflict. So I'll summarize by saying that arguments on both sides here are generally based in policy, and cannot simply be set aside; reasonable editors can and do disagree on whether the sources provided here are substantive. Given the high participation, there seems to be no purpose served by relisting. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tinney

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:Newimpartial with the following rationale "Additional secondary source added; meets NBASIC". I am afraid I disagree, the new source seems like a brief press release. I stand by my view that this person does not meet NBIO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the threshold for significant coverage is whether the (independent, reliable) source contributes material from which an encyclopaedic article can be written. This is clearly the case for at least two sources used in the present article; it therefore meets NBASIC and therefore WP:N. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Newimpartial, as I believe VG247 which Newimpartial added is a WP:RS source. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it helps at all, the Vice article I added has a little more information about him. BOZ (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It would seem that he could qualify under WP:NCREATIVE#3 having a collective body of work he was a creator or co-creator of. Part of this has to be taken at face value of WP editors that came before, but I will WP:AGF. Clearly part of the body of work seems to be Mind's Eye Theatre (for being specifically called out by Appelcline in Designers & Dragons, which seemed to cover him pretty broadly according to the article) and Rage (where there are only two creatives listed). That's a body right there that would qualify when pushing NCREATIVE to its limit. That plus the ability to actually write the biographical information thanks to the Designers & Dragons book push past failing WP:NOTRESUME/WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That alone is a bit thin, but following the pages linking to him, he's also a designer of Aberrant, Hunter: The Reckoning, and Vampire: The Requiem. These games list many more designers, so it's a bit harder to judge his individual contributions, but I don't think they should be dismissed. The World of Darkness series post 2002 probably would probably add more to his body of work given the statement by Appelcline that games in the line underwent massive changes, but I can't really verify much beyond that, so this part just nudges me past weak keep, and definitly past a redirect (although redirecting to White Wolf Publishing might make sense, it does face WP:X or Y problems, dismissing more specific works). -2pou (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Mind's Eye Theatre is the single most important credit, and it is worth noting that "Line manager" in the RPG space is primarily a creative/game design position, not a marketing position. The subject's work in LARP, tabletop and CCG domains mitigates against any redirect options.
    The article, of course, sucks, but that isn't a policy-relevant argument at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assuming this is the same guy who is getting RS news coverage for the fitness startup mentioned at the end of the article. Content like this makes me strongly suspect they are. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Rage (collectible card game). Fails WP:NBIO. Like most game designers, this individual has not received in-depth, independent coverage by reliable secondary sources. The problem isn't the reliability of the sources, like keep !votes have suggested, it's the lack of significant coverage of the subject of the article, which is a requisite for NBIO. I also don't think that WP:NCREATIVE#3 applies when the body of work has not been covered by independent and/or reliable sources; and X or Y "problems" are not real problems when the page gets 1 view a day. Pilaz (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources presented below with respect to the health-gaming startup of the subject of this article are all industry-related PR press. They also either do not cover the subject in depth, or when they do it's in the format of interviews, which are WP:PRIMARY and not independent from the author, and therefore do count towards WP:NBIO in my view. Pilaz (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two of the four references are press releases that are about company mergers. The fourth reference is a very brief announcement. I don't have access to the first reference, which does seem substantial. But that's only one reference. Looking in Google books I can find him mentioned once in this book, once in another book. There's a Mike Tinney who wrote "The Secret Life of the Pencil" but I can't ascertain if it's the same person. I'm just not finding enough for an article. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1] is largely about the subject. [2] is about his work, but he's quoted a fair bit. There are plenty of sources like that one. With the first source in the article, I think we are past WP:N. Keep. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage of the individual in the sources is not sufficient in-depth to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: most of the article, and in particular the quasi-totality of the Appelcline-sourced paragraph, is word-for-word plagiarism of Appelcline's second edition of the volume Designers & Dragons (vol 3: '90-'99). Please see the template on the article for more information. Editors wishing to contribute to this AfD are recommended to look at the history to get a full picture of the state of the article prior to replying to this AfD. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do see that I unfortunately copied the first sentence word-for-word when I started the article in 2015, and the rest of that paragraph has some close paraphrasing and a few phrases copied verbatim; I rewrote that section under Talk:Mike Tinney/Temp per the instructions, so please review to make sure it is rewritten sufficiently. BOZ (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewed, de-plagiarized imo. A link on Talk:Mike Tinney to the temp is the next step, BOZ. I'm going to ask the copyvio admins/clerks if they can make this article skip the line, given that it's at AfD. Pilaz (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have checked the rewrite and it's acceptable and have installed it in the article. Thanks BOZ for taking the time to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have a very short article based on several secondary sources now, which is, as Newimpartial has already said, the basic criterion for notability. The discussion here has also turned up several more sources, so someone unhappy with the current length could use those to expand the article. Daranios (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not sure if the articles that are currently in there make Tinney notable enough, but I think all of them plus his work as the CEO of FIX Health *do* make him pass WP:NBIO. Other sources include (and to be clear, not all of these are probably reliable sources, but this is just me cherrypicking the first few that have shown up): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Nomader (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to White Wolf Publishing or, alternatively, if there is no agreeable redirect target, delete. No source has been provided that shows Tinney himself as the subject of coverage. He is covered peripherally in relation to White Wolf, thus that is how we should cover him as well. The fitness press above (including Benefit News) is all puff press, quoting him as CEO but not giving any actual detail on him or his life or even the company. czar 16:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to White Wolf Publishing, per Czar.--AlexandraIDV 10:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge: As written this is not a biography or even close. Fails NBIO and SIGCOV. I don't understand the want or need to keep pseudo biographies. In this case supported by industry related sources (clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT or reliable) such as this, that jumps on the side of advertising. A company source that gives passing mention is not a biographical source (might be acceptable as content sourcing but not advancing notability) leaving the article looking like a resume and not a biography. We should be very clear on biographies and not "assume" or surmise if there is notability for an article, using respected mainstream publications. At present this article is about the career of a subject (or related companies) with zero customary biographical information such as when born etc... -- Otr500 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • All other arguments notwithstanding, WP:RESUME does not apply to this case, nor is Mike Tinney known "only in connection with a single event". Daranios (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to this vote, I would point out that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP - the vote doesn't address the Notability of the BLP subject at all, only the current article, and is therefore strictly irrelevant at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It addresses the concerns of the nominator, which are NBIO and SIGCOV, which are both integral parts of our notability guidelines, and it discusses several sources in detail. That's unquestionably more source analysis than you have provided in this discussion. Pilaz (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This fails WP:BIO. Otr500 is spot on. Not sure where you'd merge this to, though. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "ditto" !vote to a non-policy-based rationale is essentially a null !vote, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 8 February 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 00:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Y. Zhang

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

having googled about her in both english and chinese, i'm afraid she doesnt seem to have more notable achievements than other professors of philosophy. RZuo (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete subject to further information. chairman of a department is not necessarily a notable position. The books are all in Chinese, and I have no way of evaluating them. They don't show up in WorldCat, but that is not necessarily meaningful . Hong Cong Baptist Univeristy is respectable, a/c the ratings, but the famous research university in HK is University of Hong Kong, followed by Chinese University of Hong Kong. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Zhang's common two-character name makes it more difficult to narrow down coverage about her specifically (there are at least four other professors I found in greater China with her name), so I spent a bit of time trying to find more coverage, but unfortunately, I do not think she passes the GNG or PROF muster based on Chinese sources. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I conducted further searches for sources and could not find enough coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:30, 29 January 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 merge to Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 15)

Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced TV series article. Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 14:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't speak Polish so can't speak to the quality of the sources, but just wanted to flag that the main page for this show links to season-specific pages for most of the series, so if the consensus is that this page isn't notable, presumably all the similar ones could also be deleted or merged into the main page. --CameronVictoria (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate one shouldn't be parochial, but I can't see any point in having an article with the Polish name as its title. Presumably anyone who can understand the article's title can also read the Polish WP's article on the subject, and anyone who cannot, will have no idea what the article is about anyway, which renders it utterly pointless to our English-speaking readers. Given that the natural language of English WP is English, it should at least be moved to an English-titled article (e.g. Your face sounds familiar (Season 15) (Polish TV show)), unless it is commonly known in the English-speaking sphere by its Polish name; and if moving it renders it meaningless, it probably isn't notable. Elemimele (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Each of the previous seasons has its own article, and most of them have only a single reference. So there is no rationale for deleting this one that doesn't apply to all the others. Whether they SHOULD have independent articles, and whether it is appropriate to have a Polish title for them, can be discussed elsewhere, probably at the parent article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should apply all the others. It not acceptable for articles not to have references. The standard to pass Afd is WP:THREE. This article doesn't meet that. It does have one reference. Every part of it should be referenced. It is more than a question of fairness. A lot of these folks don't seem to want to put references in. They would rather copy the content from the source, like as happened here and leave as is. That is unacceptable in 2022. Saying they have a single reference doesn't escape the problem. The article was redirected twice, by different editor's and this editor, who has talk page full red warnings, edit warred to bring it and doesn't communicate. I'll get the rest of them in. scope_creepTalk 11:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss GizzyCatBella's merger suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was planning on nominating the rest of them, but forgot about the afd. The analysis above seems to be valid. The statistics in each of these articles have been copied verbatim from the page, for example in Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (season 1). I will add them all to this Afd as a group. scope_creepTalk 23:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because I believe they should be part of this Afd as they are effectively unsourced: 
scope_creepTalk 23:48, 24 January 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. Tone 23:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Ganger

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

Stub article with no evidence of notability. McPhail (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the sources relate to his involvement in the shooting, which suggests WP:SINGLEEVENT applies. Is he notable outside of his involvement in a single event? I'd suggest not. McPhail (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I have written, I have written. We see this differently. You already said your piece. I don't need you to badger me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly badgering. Questioning responses in AfDs is standard to make sure the argument holds up. If the WP:SINGLEEVENT point can't be addressed then it kinda undermines your keep vote. — Czello 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I have written, I have written. We see this differently. You already said your piece. I don't need you to badger me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't tag me. As for your comment, I understand what you are trying to do, but you are unaware of the long-term context, so your comment misses the mark a bit. Thank you for your vote. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:00, 31 January 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 keep. Sources brought forth are unchallanged, indicating GNG is met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan (band)

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

A previous AfD for this band was closed a few hours ago as "no consensus" because the nominator kept changing his/her mind and seems unfamiliar with the consensus process. The closing admin said No prejudice against speedy renomination so here it is. I voted to delete this band the first time, for the following reason. Despite a long career and many albums, it appears that significant and reliable coverage has eluded this band. They have a bare-bones listing at AllMusic but none of the albums have staff reviews. They get occasional unreliable blog reviews (e.g. [8], [9]) but even those are rare. Beyond that I can only find some basic retail listings, even when searching for the band's name in conjunction with the founding members' names. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the reliable sources/reviews above, which look like are more than enough meet guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I also searched for only one album. More sources await on the others. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 25 January 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. The issue here is whether this man was notable outside of his alleged connection to Anne Frank. If not, our guidelines suggest that he should be covered in an article about her, if at all. But arguments have been made here that he was in fact notable for other reasons, based on the sources cited in the article. And on that question, there's no consensus in this discussion. Sandstein 08:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold van den Bergh (notary)

Arnold van den Bergh (notary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:1E. Obscure notary who in a recent book was accused of possibly being the betrayer of Anne Frank. That accusation is disputed (as noted in the article) and subject has no notability other than that disputed allegation. Should be deleted or merged into Anne Frank. If his guilt was not disputed and was well-established, there would be justification for a separate article on this person. But it is disputed and is not well-established or accepted by scholars at this point in time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: "Obscure" is not really the right word here… please try to keep any proposal WP:NPOV and contribute personal viewpoints as part of the discussion. —Sladen (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple:, appreciations for returning to Wikipedia, and contributing additional input.
  1. It is fairly usual that articles get expanded: for example, if an editor raises concerns about WP:Notability, it is usual to see additional citations added, documenting WP:Notability.
  2. We can see a new edit Special:Diff/1068130241/1068867655 (from yesterday) tagging {{Original research}} and, here on the AfD, also stating "lengthy footnotes" but… inspection of the article shows zero footnotes and all sentences individually referenced, including with |quote= and |trans-quote= for the benefit of readers (and editors) who may find working with scans of historic documents in multiple languages difficult—a situation unavoidable when the subject was active 70‒100 years ago, and in The Netherlands.
  3. Likewise, the formatting of Dutch names can vary; so in An interim Report on the Art Activities of Hermann Goering (1945) [in English] (cited fully in the article, and URL-linked above) the subject is named as both "van der Bergh" and "A. v.d. Bergh". To assist readers (and other editors) these names have been wikilinked using {{ill}} so that transcription differences like Hermann Göring/Goering are (hopefully) less confusing to readers (and editors).
In summary: editors are generally happy to attempt to address any concerns and to improve articles (that is the basis of Wikipedia), but it requires effort (and cooperation) on the part of those initiating AfD (and/or similar processes) to clearly spell out (ie. precisely and exactly) those concerns. Is that something you'd be willing to do? —Sladen (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily. Not only did this so-called event or his alleged role change the course of history, but the article clearly states and sources that he was a notable notary during his life. That's all that matters here. Trillfendi (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - with multiple sources, and seems to make reasonable claims of notability, think its an easy keep. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Follow-up) Comment: @Coretheapple (initiator) …another week has gone by without initiating a discussion on Talk:Arnold van den Bergh (nor replying at this AfD) regarding the precise basis for subsequently adding {{Original research}} and {{Primary sources}} tags.
    Per WP:WTRMT "[it is] strongly recommend[ed] that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed", then it would appear appropriate to remove those newly-added {{Original research}} and {{Primary sources}} tags: because without having precise details, it will remain (extremely) difficult to attempt to "address" any asserted problems.
    —Sladen (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC) (Note, in the mean-time Gidonb, enacted by Synoman Barris, have moved the article to Arnold van den Bergh).[reply]
    Sladen, shit I didn't notice the AFD tag on the article when moving it, otherwise I could have declined it immediately. I don't know what's wrong with my browser that I could see it. I will revert my move until this AFD is closed. Cheers and thanks for the ping Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 10:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Synoman Barris:, don't think there was actually a problem with the move. It was simply noting that the Article (and therefore the Talk: page—where Coretheapple might have left any reply—would have also moved during the course of discussion. (And there appears to still be no reply, so the matter is somewhat mute). —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of a problem moving when in AfD. Maybe someone could explain this one to me. We always continue improving articles while in AfD! I saw the article as it was in AfD. Please move again to the correct location right after the discussion because, as we have no article on another person by this name, this is a totally trivial move and the current name is WRONG. I would have rather had it at the correct location all the time. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb:, again, don't think there is/was a problem with proposing the move. The (notary) disambiguated article name was following Dutch Wikipedia and because there's another Arnold van den Bergh [nl] (1857‒1932) (also from Oss…) (one of the sons of Simon van den Bergh who was was involved with Margarine Unie and founding of the Unilever empire. (ie. a disambig might be better in the long-run). Regarding "after the discussion", if the article should be kept/deleted, then please say so (here on the AfD), along with justification!… —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sladen, I did say so here and on the other page. We should never disambiguate where there is nothing to disambiguate, just because of some situation at Nlwiki. Went into lots of trouble and now a necessary improvement is undone. Synoman Barris, can you put the article back at Arnold van den Bergh? Your first move was perfect! gidonb (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gidonb,Sladen Per WP:EDITATAFD there is a clause Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion and Articles at AFD's should never be created into redirects. If this article is kept just post a request at WP:RM/TR or a ping will do and it will be immediately moved back. Cheers Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 07:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Synoman Barris, thanks. Will do. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; there's no justification in merging such a lot of information about van den Bergh into the Anne Frank article because the evidence is so disputed. Nevertheless, the accusation links him to a piece of history that is very relevant and interesting to WP's readers, who may therefore have a legitimate interest in his background and who he was. I know this is close to notability-by-inheritance, but it's more about fulfilling an encyclopaedia's role of providing background to important subjects and periods in history. He also clearly played a much wider role in society at the time, and there is no shortage of stuff written about him, even before the allegations. I think it's interesting enough, and well-enough sourced, to keep. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re your point and Sladen's above, since this nomination the article has been padded with primary sources, and synthesis. There are no secondary sources for the new material added. With that surplusage stripped out, there is very little that needs to be added to the Anne Frank article as it currently exists, if anything. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 8 February 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 keep. This is without prejudice to the possibility of a merger, which is a normal editorial action that can be taken following a discussion on an article talk page, or under WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion and reflection, I consider it appropriate to amend this closure to no consensus on the grounds of poorer quality of argument on the keep side. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Flag

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

I prodded this a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". User:Toughpigs deprodded ith and expanded, with the edit summary "added more information from independent reliable sources". Unfortunately, the article is still limited to just a plot summary and publication history and contains zero indication why the subject meets WP:GNG. The linked sources I checked don't seem to go beyond said plot summary and list of works he appeared in, and I am afraid that's too little to meet GNG (as well as WP:SIGCOV). Side note to people new to the topic area: a lot of "comic book encyclopedias" are illustrated plot summaries, not written by scholars but by fans, and are in-universe, and/or much closer to illustrated books for young readers/fans or graphic novels than encyclopedias. So the argument "notable because he is mentioned in another encyclopedia" is not going to be very helpful here, I am afraid. The Encyclopedia of Golden Age Superheroes is not an academic work but a fan Kickstarter project... and while I couldn't access the print version, I think it just reproduces the contents found on the author's website: [29]/[30], and I think this is representative of the coverage of this super niche character in general (no analysis anywhere, just plot summary and least of appearances, sorry if I sound like a broken record). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See for yourself. The relevant parts are from the end of page 132 to the beginning of 134, so it's only two pages at most. It's just some storylines. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich Thank you. As I suspected, there is ZERO critical, literary analysis of this character. Wikipedia is not Fandom, that's why we have GNG policy - we require more than just a rehashing of the plot, we need something showing this has been considered significant, notable, etc. Why so many people fail to understand this is beyond me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Notable superhero as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect No indication, in the form of sources or a reception section, that this character has had any significant impact outside of his own universe, as mandated by WP:IINFO#1 and WP:WAF. The source provided above doesn't give anything relevant, and, like the nominator, I failed to find anything that could qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the nominator has attempted to dismiss the cited sources but I disgaree with their reasoning. A published book doesn't have to be written by scholars to count towards establishing notability. It would be good to hear from Toughpigs who may be able to offer more insight into the sources they cited. NemesisAT (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NemesisAT Works by non-scholars are fine, but we need something that goes beyond a pure plot summary and/or publication history. IMHO at least a few sentences of analysis, sth like "Captain Flag exemplifies middle-of-century nationalism" or like is necessary for the topic to merit an encyclopedic article (which is what makes it different from an entry on a fan wiki, where in-universe information is sufficient). Or do you disagree with that? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way though as we don't have access to the sources cited, I'm happy to assume they do have the coverage required. NemesisAT (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But nobody made such assertion - further, the editors like Toughpigs who expanded the article know how important such content would be and I have trouble believing they would not include it if they found it. Which leads us to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do have access to the source cited (see above), and it has been shown that the WP:WAF-compliant coverage is nonexistent. Avilich (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The character is already covered here https://archiecomics.fandom.com/wiki/Captain_Flag. If anybody is genuinely interested in preserving the information, that is probably a better place to start than an encyclopedia which explicitly mandates that articles on fictional topics not be limited to in-universe details. Avilich (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; the argument that the information is available elsewhere so we don't need it could be applied to everything in Wikipedia. People are interested in who illustrated these comic-hero strips, what other series were being produced at the same time, that sort of background information, which is indeed in the article, and referenced. We do not need erudite professorial secondary sources to prove notability; we just need to prove that people independent of the source are publishing reasonably meaningful material. We don't expect reviews of Bollywood films to contain analysis about their exemplification of 2020's political thought, and nor should we require this of 1940's entertainment-fiction. Elemimele (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For notability to be demonstrated, sources are needed to prove that this topic has received MOS:REALWORLD coverage. Publication history and plot info are trivial stuff that all fictional topics have, and so aren't enough on their own (WP:PLOT). As far as I can see, the current sourcing does not have any of this. Benton 1992 appears to have little more than passing mentions, and Mougin 2020 is basically only plot information and publication history. Markstein's Toonopedia is a deadlink but presumably just the same, and the rest seem to have only plot summaries as well. Avilich (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep meets WP:N with sources discussed in DRV. Arguments that WP:PLOT and MOS:REALWORLD apply as part of our inclusion guidelines are a stretch. We meet the notability guidelines and it's possible to write a short article that meets the MOS with what we have. Hobit (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient sourcing exists to meet GNG, and, per Hobit, I note that the arguments put forth in the DRV, that independent RS'es which wouldn't align with our fiction MOS'es if they were Wikipedia content are inherently incapable of contributing to notability, entirely wrongheaded. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently sourced article to meet the notability criteria. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Okay, in my opinion articles about fictional topics should contain more than a summary of the plot. Notability means importance. What makes this topic important? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for stopping by and cutting straight to the chase. That's the very crucial point that many people here seem to be ignoring. Yes, we can source the plot with some "secondary" picture books. That doesn't mean the topic is notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient sourcing to meet MOS criteria. WP:PLOT, perhaps ironically, does not actually mention plot. It did at one time, but that did not prevail. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the real world information to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes. The sources in the article prove existence, but nothing more. Tellingly, there's a citation from American Comic Book Chronicles: 1965-1969, when the character was revived for one issue. I checked ACBC: 1940-1944 last night, which covered the time period where the character would have been most notable, and "Captain Flag" was not mentioned. Captain Flag was not mentioned in The Ten-Cent War, a book focused exclusively on WWII-era, WWII-themed comic books, nor in The Superhero Symbol, which has a chapter or two on the use of patriotic heroes. The average page views from 11/1/21 thru 12/31/21 was 7 per day, so it's a valid search term and I believe it's worth preserving the creators and debut issue somewhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not be opposed to a redirect or merge either, and amended my vote accordingly. Avilich (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this another week post DRV so we don't end up back at DRV. Fictional characters are a complicated mess. Can we send them all to schools where they can earn Olympic medals at a place that may not be geographically recognized?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes per Argento Surfer. While the character is mentioned in some sources, none of those sources actually constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Several sources have been added to the article since the AFD started, but none of them appear to actually be significant coverage, and several of them are on a completely different character and don't even mention Captain Flag, so I'm not even sure why they were added. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the sources are poor, but others have a page+ of material. We don't delete (or merge) because some of the sourcing is poor. In this case, we've identified sources that do cover the topic in depth. The only real debate at this point is if sources that are mostly (but not entirely) about plot are useful toward the GNG. It's a fairly novel argument to claim that they aren't, but I'm really not seeing any debate about having sources that spend significant ink covering the topic. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently sourced article to meet the notability criteria. I agree with Dimadick. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes, as per Argento Surfer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - of the sources, they all are either indiscriminate collections of information, explicitly describe Captain Flag as "obscure" and "secondary", don't mention them at all, or are unarchived and therefore inaccessible. If Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then why are we sourcing from indiscriminate collections of information? It just doesn't make much sense. casualdejekyll 20:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability on Wikipedia is a term of art that indicates if the WP:GNG or appropriate WP:SNG is met. Lots of detailed sources that call something "obscure" or "secondary" are better than a handful of sources that say "important" or "primary". Hobit (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My argument here is based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is an explicit exception to GNG, and I quote: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." (Emphasis mine.) casualdejekyll 22:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Still the same problem as I see it. What makes this "indiscriminate"? The fact that some sources have used the term "obscure"? See WP:NOTPAPER. This isn't a database or something else that WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists. I'm not sure how your !vote isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The key is we have sources. That you don't consider the issue of import isn't very relevant. Even if the sources consider it minor, that's not something our inclusion guidelines really care about. Hobit (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So, we're not allowed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but we're allowed to build an article based almost entirely off of sources that ARE Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE (the only exception as far as I'm aware being ref 4). That's what you're saying here, at least. Note that as far as I can tell, all sources are simply just "Summary-only descriptions of works" (quote from, who would have guessed, Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE). If the only thing you can source is a summary-only description of the work, then how are you supposed to cite any statement that isn't a summary only description of the work? casualdejekyll 00:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • They really aren't. They include publication dates, authors and other things. The article, as it stands, is short, but covers lots of non-plot things. So can an article be written with our sources that isn't struggling with being pure plot? Yes, we have one. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Lots of non-plot things? Please name them. The only non-plot coverage we have is publication history, which is simply verifying the existence of the topic in the real world. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes the two paragraphs we have in publication history and the two paragraphs that form the lead are all non-plot. That's more than enough for a reasonable article. People claiming that the sources we have can't support anything other than plot are shown to be wrong by the existent article. Hobit (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe what Piotrus is asking for when he says "non-plot things" would include reviews of the material, analysis of the character's impact on other heroes, the relationship between this material and the creator's other works, or something notable from the publication history that's unique (or close to it). Since the publication date and creators can be sourced from the comic book, sourcing them from third party sources doesn't add anything to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            @Argento Surfer Indeed. It's also common sense that any plot summary can be pointlessly padded with information about publication history in real world of the work it appeared in. That, however, doesn't make that work notable - it's just a WP:CATALOGUE-type of addition. Notability has to be shown through sources that treat the subject as important enough to discuss beyond a pure catalogue-like mention. Which is why the relevant policy is called WP:NOTABILITY not WP:EXISTENCE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Archie Comics. Maybe make a new section and title it "Miscellaneous Superheroes"? Fix it up a little, and rephrase the information in ways that are varied from the sources of information. I don't recommend removing information simply because it is obscure, but if it has any value. If the aforementioned "Captain Flag" article is not relevant to the comic publishers history, or doesn't contribute any worthwhile information, then I agree that you should delete it. However, obscure information has just as much place on this site as not obscure information because who is to say that it is any less useful than the most commonly known information out there? I advise that we stay wary and don't jump the gun when an article doesn't have popular information. GoofyDonut (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes as there is not enough to indicate notability of this fictional character separate from the larger cast of Archie Comics characters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Captain Flag is listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica along with others. [31] Just the name, nothing else about him. Newspapers.com shows results to sort through at [32] but apparently my account expired. I just went to the Wikipedia Library page [33] and clicked the button to request to "extend" it. Anyway, from the sources already found, I say notability is already proven. If anyone has a working account to a newspaper search site, you can surely find more. Dream Focus 17:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, you found one trivial mention, sources which you are not willing to look and are not even sure exist, and no rebuttal to the argument that the article fails the relevant NOT policy concerning fictional topics (which in turn invalidates notability altogether)? Avilich (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too am doubtful that a passing mention in Britannica and a search result (which may or may not be related to the character) could address the concerns discussed above. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment made by Hobit is a rebuttal to your argument. No need to just repeat what others have said. And I said the existing sources found and mentioned by others was enough to convince me, I just pointing to where even more things can be found should any have access. Some of the summaries that appear from search results for "Captain Flag" and "comic" are about the character. Dream Focus 22:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Piotr's counterpoint above. Which of the sources do you think provides the in-depth coverage required to meet WP:GNG? MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:32, 4 March 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, as issue that brought article to AfD has been addressed. (non-admin closure) Singularity42 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorrit van der Kooi

Jorrit van der Kooi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. Seemed to be a weak WP:BLP1E (subject interviewed a person, and the person interviewed was shot on a later date, survived, and speculated it might have been due to the interview?). Editor who disputed PROD pointed out there is a corresponding article on the Dutch Wikipedia, but that other article has no reliable sources noted and none can be found by a Google search). Singularity42 (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:TNT without prejudice against re-creation. Kudos to Singularity42 for nominating! While Van der Kooi may be notable (for example he was kept in the nlwiki AfD-like procedure), this article is written with a focus on the death of Elvis Presley. An extremely obscure and random connection is the center piece and clearly the motivation behind this article. In other words, this Dutch media BLP was hijacked and should be (as-is) deleted. I did not find a great redirect target. CERTAINLY it should not be redirected to anything related to the death of Presley! gidonb (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC) An anonymous editor resolved my main concern. gidonb (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 January 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 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eazy (musician)

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

Non notable musician failing WP:NMUSIC. A BEFORE doesn’t provide anything. Xclusivzik (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 30 January 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 Fencing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team épée. No support for keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Wgullyn (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Heim

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

Heim was a competitor in the 1936 Olympics. We source this to an exhaustive source. We decided last October that only Olympic medalists are default notable, others have to either pass another inclusion criteria or clearly pass GNG. My searches turned up things like LinkedIn pages on other people with this name, but no additional sourcing on this Marcel Heim. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now also checked the LA84 Foundation's digital library (here), which contains a ton of Olympic-related material. Didn't find any SIGCOV of Heim there either. If you or others come up with something, I'm happy to reconsider. . . . and, frankly, even if it gets deleted and something then turns up later, it's not as though we've lost anything since the article consists of one line of narrative text. Cbl62 (talk) 00:31, 26 January 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 Field hockey at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Switzerland. Boldly, as there clearly is no support for keeping this as an article, and since I've just dealt with the rest... (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Zumstein

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

Non-notable athlete who participated in one Olympics and got no medals. Wgullyn (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. My searches did not turn up any SIGCOV. The best I found is this which simply confirms that he was on the Swiss field hockey team that finished seventh out of nine teams competing at the 1928 Olympics. If researchers later dig up SIGCOV, this could be recreated without the loss of substance (the narrative text here is less than 15 words). Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This article was part of a batch creation of 11 identical, cookie-cutter, one-line sub-stubs on members of the same 1928 Swiss field hockey team that finished seventh of nine teams. All were created within a 13-minute span as follows:
(1) Charles Piot (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:37),
(2) Ernst Luchsinger (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:38),
(3) Édouard Mauris (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:40),
(4) Fred Jenny (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:41)
(5) Henri Poncet (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:42),
(6) Jean-Jacques Auberson (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:42),
(7) Werner Fehr (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:42),
(8) Zumstein (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:45);
(9) Maurice Magnin (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:45),
(10) Roland Olivier (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:46), and
(11) Adalbert Koch (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:50).
The purported claim to notability is their participation on the 1928 Switzerland men's national field hockey team, and there isn't even an article on that team. All 11 of these sub-stubs should probably be deleted IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with User:Cbl62 - none of these articles have any notability and it looks like they were all copy/pasted with only the names changed. Wgullyn (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 11. Just clarifying that my original delete vote applies to all 11 of the cookie-cutter articles listed above. Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No evidence of notability demonstrated for any of them. Also, three articles created in the same minute, and 11 in 13 minutes, suggests the creator didn't even check for notability before creating - which unfortunately means we are likely to waste more time debating their deletion than they did creating them. BilledMammal (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather false claim, as they all met the notability requirements when they were created. Unfortunately, those were changed about two years AFTER the pages were created. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:23, 27 January 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DanCherek (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Brocket

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

Not very notable, and there only appears to be one good source. Almost nothing is known about their life, and the death date is an 11-year span. It appears since they were a Member of Parliament, they are considered notable - I withdraw this AfD. Wgullyn (talk) 13:58, 24 January 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 13:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University System of Formosa

University System of Formosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been searching on the internet, Taiwan does not have this university alliance, its Chinese name is same as Taiwan Comprehensive University System (TCUS), For not to be confused, request deletes this article. SUNSmania41 (talk) 13:07, 24 January 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 WMLB. ✗plicit 05:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalk Radio

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

Article about a radio show on a station (WMLB) which has since changed formats to conservative talk. There have been no new editions of this show since 2015 as its host station has ended programming. Article does not cite any external or independent sources and appears to be WP:COI. Flip Format (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Radio shows are not automatically notable just because their own self-published web presence technically verifies that they exist; the notability test is in the depth and quality of the media coverage, in sources other than itself, that can be shown to demonstrate that its significance has been externally validated (noteworthy awards, analysis of its cultural impact, etc.) by people without a vested interest in promoting it. But there are no independent sources here, nor am I seeing a reason why the show would even be quasi-notable enough to warrant retaining a redirect. But I won't fight a redirect if somebody wants to close it that way anyway, so don't deem this "no consensus" on my account: the overridingly important thing here is to make the standalone article go away by whatever means are available. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likely a brokered programming show, and redirecting it to the WMLB article which now has a complete 180º in their programming format (starring the 'Godzilla of Truth') would be pointless and confusing. Nate • (chatter) 04:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WMLB: Barely found anything about the radio show. It doesn't matter if the station has reformatted or not or whether the show is station-produced or a blocktimer. Since the show was aired only on the said station, redirecting the show to the target article is the best WP:ATD to go. ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 13:29, 3 February 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. There is clearly no agreement on whether or not the sources found by Cunard show that a detailed article can be written on this subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SudShare

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

Although this was recently closed as Keep (non-admin closure) it occurred over a holiday period and although I was more than half-way through the references I was not in a position to comment. I opened a discussion on the Talk page with the original author (COI declared, all above board) and I can immediately see their grasp on our NCORP guidelines is flawed, as were those of the editor that moved from draft only to then nominate for deletion (that is *not* the way to do things, if you're not sure then don't move from drafts to mainspace). There is extensive analysis of sources on the articles Talk space and I can duplicate it here if necessary. None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability there topic fails HighKing++ 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 12:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 12:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would have had voted "delete" in the 1st nomination. But, I refrained because of Timtrent's advice not to involve in any of the pages where the particular AfC reviewer of this page has worked before based on a conversation at WP:ANI. Ideally, all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly. But, this was not the case with the 1st nomination because of a non-admin closure. So, I hope and believe that we are not violating WP:DRV norms of 6 months waiting/cooling period. If that's the case, then I support the 2nd nomination on this page, and I agree with the nominator's assessment. - Hatchens (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hatchens Thanks for the input! :) I think as long as the votes/comments of the first nomination are included in the consideration of the closer, this is probably a fair renomination (as the facts on the ground haven't changed since then, and it would create a statistical bias not to include them). That being said, I do find myself a bit miffed to still be here, as I don't really enjoy debating policy and would rather move on to projects I don't have a COI in. Alas, here I still am lol Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had hoped to be able to respond to @HighKing's comments on the SudShare talk page before they re-nominated it for deletion, but I've been dealing with a rather intense flare-up of some chronic health issues this past week or so, and didn't have the ability to respond until now. I apologize for that delay, and for not informing anyone I was dealing with that, leading to a fragmented discussion. I'm going to try to respond to the issues brought up in detail below, but it may take me a while due to lack of energy, and I beg the nominator's/closer's patience if I haven't responded within the normal time limit. Obviously I can't ask you to delay closing if too much time passes, and hopefully this won't even be an issue and I'll be able to respond in full today, but just in case, I feel I owe it to the community to explain my delayed response. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with acknowledgment that I have a conflict of interest as a former employee of SudShare). [I should not have made it seem like I was submitting a vote here, that was inappropriate of me and I deeply apologize. I stand by the rest of my comment, but it should merely be read as an argument for why editors without a COI might want to vote "keep," not a vote in-and-of-itself.] [see page history/Timtrent's comments below for context on the mess above; this apparently should count as a vote] Okay, so there's a lot to discuss here, so I'm going to break my reply up into smaller segments for reading/editing comprehension. I will also be relying on the assumption that editors reading this have already read the discussion on the SudShare talk page, and will continue where that left off. Please let me know if you have any issues with my formatting, or if you need a quick recap of the preceding discussion.
The first issue that I'd like to bring up here is that of the concept of "puff pieces," their definition, and how they relate to WP:NCORP. The reason I'm bringing this up is because HighKing (who, it should be noted, I think is a pretty awesome editor in general, although I'm arguing against a large swath of his past AfD comments) uses the concept extensively to dismiss a large number of sources (for failing NCORP specifically) on both the SudShare page as well as many other pages nominated for AfD in the past. This, I believe, is due to a (good faith) mistaken impression both of what a "puff piece" actually is, and how that effects notability concerns. For reference, here is HighKing's definition of a "puff piece," as taken from the SudShare talk page discussion.

"First this has nothing to do with the reputation of a journalist, it has to do with the content. In general, "puff pieces" have a particular format which usually goes includes all or most of the following "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". That article fits the bill therefore its a puff piece. And there's nothing to say that a reputable journalist doesn't do puff pieces."

This definition is commendable for its clarity, but differs significantly from the commonly accepted meaning of the term. How do I know this? Well, let's take a look at this excellent article from the Wall Street Journal on the history and definition of the term:

In the classic journalism textbook “News Reporting and Writing,” Melvin Mencher defines “puff piece” or “puffery” as a “publicity story or a story that contains unwarranted superlatives.”....a 1732 article in London Magazine explains that “puff” is a “cant word” (or bit of jargon) “for the applause that writers or booksellers give their own books &c. to promote their sale.”....In legal usage, “puffery” took on the meaning of overblown advertising based on subjective claims.....“Puff piece” has continued to grow as a derisive jab against fawning media accounts—as has its antonym “hatchet job,” for an unfair attack on someone or something.....to someone predisposed to dislike the subject matter, even the most dispassionate report might look like a puff piece.

Note that there is no mention in this article, or in any article I could find with a quick google search, that defines a "puff piece" as a piece of media with any specific format, as described by HighKing. Rather, the generally accepted definition seems to be a piece of media loaded with "unwarranted superlatives," very similar to Wikipedia's own definition of MOS:PUFFERY (also see WP:PUFF, and WP:BUZZ): "positively loaded language" designed to promote the subject of an article. This does not mean that any and every article which only talks about positive aspects of a person, corporation, or entity is a puff piece, but rather that puff pieces are specifically loaded with unwarranted superlatives.
Secondly, let's assume that an article is indeed a "puff piece" as described by HighKing. Does that make any difference in assessing notability for WP:NCORP or WP:BIO? I would argue that the answer is clearly no. Looking at WP:PUFF, WP:BUZZ, and MOS:PUFFERY, it is notable that all of these pages are about writing style within Wikipedia, not that of outside sources. It's a matter of common sense (and I'm sure there's an explicit policy about it somewhere) that sources do not have to follow WP:MOS to be establish notability or reliability. Rather, the core question is if the source can be trusted to be truthful (even if it does not contain a complete history of the subject), and if discussion of the subject can be considered "significant" (if one wishes to use the source to establish notability). The "feel" of the article, quite simply, does not and should not play a role here. The one exception to the above rule of thumb, per WP:NEWSORG, is that if the article is clearly an opinion piece, or if the publisher has a reputation for inaccuracy, then it should not be used in most contexts. If an article contains excessive "unwarranted superlatives," than of course we shouldn't use it to establish WP:NCORP, but if it merely follows the format that HighKing describes, that should not influence our judgement when considering NCORP decisions at AfD.
One objection that I can imagine being made at this point is that I'm failing to consider WP:ORGIND. This is not so. To paraphrase from ORGIND:

There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources: Independence of the author (the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product), and independence of the content (the content must not be produced by interested parties)

If an independent journalist with a reputation for fact checking and honesty writes an article which is generally favorable towards a company (but does not cross over into an opinion piece), that does not violate ORGIND, although you may personally wish the journalist had dug up some dirt on the company during her coverage or something. To assume that any positive coverage must be the work of company insiders, even when dealing with, for example, a front-page article on a 16-times Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper just doesn't seem right to me. Yes, we must do our due diligence to insure that corporations aren't "gaming the system," but this reading of NCORP seems to be going way too far, which is why I have chosen to start off by talking about this.
I will continue my discussion (and subsequent points/responses) in a reply to this below, when I have the energy to continue writing.
Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response It is notable that you've taken a nit-picking approach to my use of the term "puff piece" - fine, call it a "puff profile" then so that there's no overlap with the other term.
Most of your argument is designed to avoid the actual test we use to determine whether ORGIND or CORPDEPTH has been met. (Hint: We read the actual words in the actual article.) Your entire argument above can be summed up as a modification to ORGIND along the lines of Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject *except* if its an independent journalist with a reputation for fact checking and honesty. It is fairly easy to predict where we'd end up if we went down this particular road. Please see WP:LAWYER.
In our discussions to date, I've asked you to point to specific content within any of those articles which meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND and I'm still waiting. HighKing++ 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[writing out a detailed response, will post once complete (hopefully this afternoon). Putting this placeholder here to indicate I'm not ignoring this, just writing slowly] Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response HighKing I apologize for the "nitpicky" style of my my argument so far. You're also totally correct that I haven't yet addressed the specific content within the articles here in favor of a more abstract approach. I can understand your concern that I'm leaning dangerously close to Wikilawyering, and I'll try to be better about that in the future (though some of this is just my personal long-winded style, and for that I can't honestly promise I'll be better, since I'm quite terrible at condensing my thoughts).
First however, just to answer your objection, I'm afraid that there might have been a misunderstanding. The core of my above argument was simply that your criteria for determining that something is a "puff piece," "puff profile," or whatever you wish to call it, is a disqualifying criteria that seems to be of your own invention, rather than originating in something within CORPDEPTH, ORGIND, other Wikipedia guidelines, or historical definitions (though you're right that the latter was irrelevant, and I apologize for getting carried away). That is to say, my understanding is that the "test we use to determine whether ORGIND or CORPDEPTH has been met" is to check if the content can be clearly attributable to an independent party, regardless of if that third party is writing in a format you've identified that you don't personally like or not. I did not mean to imply that we should simply trust journalists with solid reputations, though looking back, I see how my words could have easily been read that way. One place where journalistic reputation does genuinely come into play is when we're dealing with a known bad actor (such as fake news sites, tabloids, and some trade journals), which I brought up with the intention of saying that that isn't what we are dealing with here. Additionally, as per WP:CORPDEPTH, (under the "Numerical facts" subheading), "the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent." This clearly seems to indicate that we can indeed be more trusting of the independence of a reputable source, though that should in no way stop us from doing due diligence. Sincere apologies for the confusion, and I hope this helps you understand my position more clearly.
Okay, now on to specifics! I'll be going in the order of the articles you brought up in your last comment on the SudShare talk page, rather than in order of what I personally find to be the "strongest" sources, so I will be bringing up some genuinely borderline cases here, which I expect we might reasonably disagree on. I've also skipped a number of references brought up that you've either successfully convinced me aren't valid for NCORP (if you want I'd be happy to list them), or which we've already discussed to the point that I don't think further clarification on my part will help (happy to list those as well, of course, if you feel that would be useful).
  • With regards to the ESPN Sioux Falls reference, as discussed before, it does use a previously-written Sioux Falls article as its jumping-off point, but, I would argue, adds significant enough "original and independent opinion" and analysis to be considered independent for the purposes on NCORP. (For reference, the relevant quote in full is "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." Note the use of the words " must include" rather than "must consist solely of"—I think there was some confusion about that in your initial comment on the talk page). The relevant independent opinion and analysis in the article is as follows (apologies in advance for the length, but as you asked for direct quotes...):

    "Doing laundry is one of those universal chores that fall under the heading of nuisance. You know you need to do it for health and social reasons. After all, family members and friends prefer to spend time around loved ones who don't smell like 10-year-old sneakers. Plus, it's just not good form to wear the same t-shirt for two weeks, or turn your underwear inside out and wear it again! But you're busy, very busy! So busy that your hamper is overflowing. Or for some people, your bedroom floor is covered with so many dirty clothes, it looks and smells like a garbage dump. Or you're lazy, very lazy! Your trunk or truck bed has bags and bags of so many clothes, you no longer remember what might be in them. You only know for sure that your favorite pair of jeans has been missing for a month. Busy or lazy, it doesn't matter anymore....[At this point, information from the prior article is basically repeated]....Obviously, there are a lot of people out there who simply hate doing laundry, because SudShare is now available in 400 cities, with more being added all the time. If you decide to hire a “Sudster” the typical customer can expect to pay $35 to $40 per service. That is of course unless you had to rent a Pod, which is currently sitting on your driveway full of your dirty laundry!"

    This clearly includes significant Independent content, as defined above, primarily though rather colorful opinion/analysis. As someone (with a declared conflict of interest) who was an employee of SudShare at the time this article came out, I can assure you that no executive there would have signed off on an article straight up calling customers lazy. If that isn't independent of the company, I don't know what is!
    • With regards to the Sioux Falls article the ESPN article is based on, I think it might be (weakly) arguable that the use of cross-referencing the company's statements (such as the amount of money they claim can be made by contractors) with those of independent contractors counts as "fact checking". Probably not worth investigating further in this context, but I can imagine situations in which that sort of consideration could be relevant.
  • You've previously dismissed The Root article as being about the product, rather than the company, and asked me to specify where the company as a whole is discussed. Here are some relevant passages from the article, with some sections that are clearly about the company rather than the product in bold:

    I haven’t been to a laundromat in eons and frankly, all of the ones close to me are probably drug fronts. Luckily, this new gig-economy has created a service that does all of the heavy lifting for you: SudShare. SudShare—and no this is not an ad—is an app that lets you outsource your laundry. You put all your clothes in bags and then a person comes to pick the stuff up and then they wash, dry, fold and then return your clothes back to you by the 8 p.m. the next day at $1 a pound.....While I feel a way about some random stranger both washing my clothes and HAVING THEM for so long—real talk, they could just decide not to deliver my clothes to me, kind of like that time I watched my UberEats driver drive RIGHT past my house doing like 65 mph with my order of Popeyes only to never be seen on the app again—I welcomed the opportunity to not have to fold everything.....So imagine my surprise when I’m getting clothes back folded, impressively so and more efficient and neatly than I do. I wasn’t prepared. I tipped one SudShare person $20 JUST because I was impressed with her folding. The way she folded my shirts gave me a new way to fold to maximize more space in my drawers....I was looking forward to having my clothes delivered so I could see what new and innovative ways folks are folding their clothes. I really didn’t know I cared this much about folded clothes until I had no choice but to have others wash my clothes. I’ve got new techniques and all.....Now thats not to say that the entire experience has been sweet. For instance, I’ve learned that many, many of you have no business washing OR folding folks clothes.....I have been testing certain clothes out, on purpose so I can build up a roster of folks who I’m fine with doing the wash; in SudShare you can request folks who have washed your clothes before.....I got one bag back of clothes and the socks weren’t even folded together. WHO DOES THAT? No (good) tip for you. Not to mention this same person didn’t even try to fold the shirts in a way that didn’t cause wrinkle-age....this SudSharer is basically the Alamo now—I’ll never forget. But I will say that I have mostly learned new and innovative ways to fold my clothes....With that said....this life starts to add up and ultimately nobody will care about my clothes the way that I do. But there are a few SudSharers who I now trust. They got good tips. And now my folded laundry looks different which is basically like having new clothes so it’s all win over here.

    The WP:SNOWFLAKE aspect of SudShare is its business model of using independent contractors who wash at home, rather than at laundromats. That's not the product, that's the core of what makes the business notable. Yes, obviously a review talking about sudsters, the anxiety of giving away your laundry for someone else to do, and the way the company allows connections to form with the workers involves the product (cleaned clothes), but in this case that clearly isn't the focus for much of the article. It's a discussion about the concept of trust and ownership, how SudShare works as a unique business model, and the quality (or lack thereof) of its workers/contractors, not solely (or even primarily) a pure product review.
  • I had written a whole thing on the Baltimore Sun article, but saw that Cunard had already provided an excellent explanation with quotes about the notability and independence of the article below, so unless you have further issues or questions not answered there, I don't feel like it's necessary for me to further clutter up this page with what's already been stated.
  • From the FreightWaves article, lines like "As COVID demonstrated, people will pay a premium for convenience, and that holds true for laundry, as evidenced by the exponential growth of a company like SudShare" could be considered independent analysis, although the bulk of the article is definitely not.
  • You asked which portions of the other Sioux Falls article were independent. Here are a few quotes that to me at least, pretty clearly indicate independent analysis/opinion on how SudShare has impacted the workforce:

    “Before this, I was doing factory work,” she said. “I did both for a while. And now I’m just doing (gig work) full time.” If you are in manufacturing, or logistics, or food processing, think about that. Stoopes could have been one of your employees. And, unlike what some continue to insist to me, it’s not that she’s sitting at home relying on government assistance. It’s not that she just decided to drop out of the workforce. It’s that instead of working on a production line, she’s in her car delivering other people’s groceries or in her laundry room washing and drying their clothes. And she loves it

    ....I see it in my own business constantly. My ability to attract and retain talent is highly influenced by my willingness to offer them as much control over their time as possible. That’s not always easy in a deadline-driven job. I fully recognize that working for us comes second to whatever is going on in their lives and that they will prioritize their time accordingly, and as a leader it’s ultimately on me to make it all work. That’s clearly more doable in some industries than others, which explains why some are suffering so acutely for workers, I think. You generally can’t let front-line health or safety workers create their own hours or work environment. Someone has to be in the kitchen cooking when the customer is there to eat. You can’t assemble a complex product or process a hog from home. But we as leaders also can benefit by thinking more like that teenager in Baltimore. And by remembering that just because we don’t necessarily see them, workers like Stoopes are creating their own version of work.....It’s possible to build culture and loyalty even in a more fragmented workplace. But, again, it takes a more modern approach. Fittingly, right after I spoke with my first Sudster, I stopped by Talent Draft Day, an event hosted this year by the University of Sioux Falls....USF president Brett Bradfield was one of many who heard me retell the story of the Sudster I’d just met earlier that day. It didn’t surprise him, either. “I’ve had some people ask me when I think things are going to get back to normal,” he told me. Neither one of us said anything for a moment, probably thinking the same thing. Forget normal. Change and disruption are the new normal. And if you’re struggling to hire, don’t forget about people like the Sudster.

    I think this speaks for itself as an excellent independent opinion piece that uses an interview as a jumping-off point, but which ultimately meets NCORP with a unique reading of SudShare's employees and business practices through the lens of the changing workforce.
I hope all of this helps you understand why I believe in the notability of the SudShare article.
Yours, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say "what matters for NCORP is if the information in an article is produced/fact checked by independent parties or not" which is largely correct, but you've omitted the bit that says the fact-checking must be "clearly attributable". You're trying to introduce an assumption that a journalist's integrity shouldn't be questioned and we should base a decision on the "quality" of the journalist. Nothing in the guidelines even comes close to this assumption and for good reason. HighKing++ 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to quickly note that a number of articles seem to have come out since the wiki page was last edited. Some are probably relevant to the discussion, though others are probably not. New articles include:
  • This MinneInno article about SudShare moving headquarters (probably useless for NCORP)
  • This front-cover article in Mishpacha Magazine, a family-oriented Jewish newspaper (I found out about it from my local Jewish community talking about it), which seems pretty in-depth: https://mishpacha.com/loads-of-profit/ This is almost certainly of relevance, and I highly recommend at least checking it out. (I personally think it should meet NCORP, though my guess is HighKing might consider it a "puff piece," as discussed above) [per HighKing's points below, I no longer believe this, and concur with their assessment]
  • This interview, which isn't of any use on Wikipedia beyond serving as a new source for some non-controversial facts.
  • This article, which while seemingly partially based on past reporting, does also include some original reporting, which might be helpful.
  • This listicle article; make of it what you will (probably not much?)
Hope this is helpful :) Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Mishpacha Magazine reference is a puff profile (my new phrase!) that follows the same dull format as all the others - "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". This one even publishes a photo from the "Family archives". I mean, c'mon, are you even trying?
The Baltimore Magazine article is also a "puff profile". Not sure what "some original reporting" is meant to mean relative to our guidelines. If you mean ORGIND then you're gonna need to highlight which bit meets ORGIND because the article is *entirely* based on information provided by the company. HighKing++ 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing This isn't me "trying" or not, just posting some potentially relevant updates on the situation. In retrospect mentioning my personal opinion was a mistake here, since that wasn't my primary goal, and I didn't want to be adversarial (though I realize I've clearly come across that way). I'll try to address the details with quotes in the reply to our conversation above I'm working on, as per your request. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could help me with an aspect of your position I'm confused about—would you mind linking some Wikipedia articles about companies which haven't been the subject of controversy that you believe meet NCORP guidelines? I'm having a really hard time even imagining what an article of that sort would look like for you, which means I'm probably misunderstanding something about your position. Thanks, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yitzilitt (paid), I'll take it to your Talk page rather than cluttering this one up and for us to avoid WP:BLUD allegations. HighKing++ 17:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Some of the articles include quotes from people affiliated with the company, but there is enough independent coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources and there is enough depth of coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage.
    1. Mirabella, Lorraine (2021-11-15). "Pikesville father and son roll out national 'Uber for laundry' concept". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

      The article is an in-depth profile of the company. It includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but it also includes independent research and reporting. The article notes: "SudShare, which the teen launched four years ago with his father, an entrepreneur, now has customers in 400 cities who pay other people to wash their clothes. The service employs an army of gig-economy contractors, paid by the pound, to wash those clothes in their home laundry rooms. ... Like Uber, SudShare works through a scheduling app and on-demand pickup — of laundry, that is. For $1 per pound and a $20 minimum, customers can leave bags of clothes at their doors to be picked up, washed, dried, folded and delivered the next day."

      The article quotes from an independent expert:

      “I definitely think it’s a good idea,” said Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. “I think it can work for the right consumer. There are going to be some consumers who aren’t going to like that idea of people touching your clothes.”

      But she can see it appealing to others, such as busy professionals who rely on shared laundry facilities or laundromats. A key, she believes, will be finding ways to retain enough reliable contractors to meet demand.

    2. Hebron, Grace (January 2022). "Baltimore-Born App Allows Locals to Outsource Their Laundry: Somewhere between a rideshare service and a laundromat, SudShare has evolved to service 400 cities". Baltimore. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

      The article notes: "Since its local takeoff roughly three years ago, SudShare has evolved to service 400 cities, now with more than 55,000 Sudsters spread across the U.S. And though much has changed since 2018—the Fertel brothers moved to Minneapolis, MN, where SudShare is now headquartered—“Baltimore remains one of our biggest cities,” says Fertel."

    3. Jackson, Panama (2021-05-27). "My Washer Broke and I've Had to Outsource My Favorite Chore—Washing Clothes. I've Learned a Few Things". The Root. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

      The author reviews her experiences with SudShare. I consider a review of the author's experiences and learnings with using SudShare to be significant coverage about SudShare. The article notes: "Luckily, this new gig-economy has created a service that does all of the heavy lifting for you: SudShare. SudShare—and no this is not an ad—is an app that lets you outsource your laundry. You put all your clothes in bags and then a person comes to pick the stuff up and then they wash, dry, fold and then return your clothes back to you by the 8 p.m. the next day at $1 a pound."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SudShare to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response Almost none of the above argument by Cunard meets our NCORP guidelines. For example, a "review of the author's experiences" with the product/service is not applicable for establishing the notability of the company - if the topic was about the product/service then it might. Cunard's understanding of "Independent Coverage" ignores the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Cunard says an article "includes independent research" but then quotes a generic paragraph that has appeared in several of the other advertorials. Cunard also appears to misunderstand the requirement for such "Independent Content" to also assist with CORPDEPTH, the quotation from the marketing exec - that its a "good idea" - falls well short. HighKing++ 13:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not agree with the analysis that a "review of the author's experiences" is insufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. It would not be beneficial to the reader to have the article only be about the company's product/service of providing laundry services through independent contractors. But if refocusing the article would change your viewpoint to support retention, then that is an option.

        Regarding "the quotation from the marketing exec", the quotation was not from a marketing executive. It was from a marketing university professor. The full quote is "“I definitely think it’s a good idea,” said Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. “I think it can work for the right consumer. There are going to be some consumers who aren’t going to like that idea of people touching your clothes.” But she can see it appealing to others, such as busy professionals who rely on shared laundry facilities or laundromats. A key, she believes, will be finding ways to retain enough reliable contractors to meet demand." This is independent and detailed analysis from an expert at a university.

        Cunard (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        • Response You're conflating the two different uses we make of references. The most common is to support facts within the article. The other is to establish notability. A "review of the author's experiences" with the *product* does not establish notability of the *company* - but like you say, it can still be used to support "fleshing out" the article and support facts, etc. When we say the reference fails NCORP, we're only ruling it out from assistingg in establishing notability, we're not banning its use. On the quote from the marketing professor, where's the "in-depth information" about the *company*? It's a throwaway opinion of little content, does not assist in establishing notability because there's isn't enough from her. HighKing++ 22:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SudShare participants: Nomadicghumakkad (talk · contribs), Caleb Stanford (talk · contribs), Yitzilitt (paid) (talk · contribs), and Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom. and in complete agreement with the reasons provided by Timtrent, and Falcon Kirtaran. - Hatchens (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially an advertisement. Almost all the references are press releases or announcements. I notice that a number of the sources suggest as acceptable above contain extensive information--on prices, and details of using the system, which is not encyclopedic content . The definition of promotional content is content intended to appeal to the prospective user, and almost every one of these qualifies. (They all tend to copy each other, which is a good sign that they're derived form the same press release) The reason for the promotional coverage in so many local sources is, of course, that during the pandemic a great many people were looking for such services--we should indeed cover this, but in general articles and a very few of the refs above might be useful there. Google and the thousands of local web sites did an excellent job covering the possibilities--I have an extensive collection of links relevant to my area, and probably so do many of us. Despite the evident desires of some former officers of the WMF, we shouldn't try to duplicate Google.
I should add that. the function of a paid editor is to write encyclopedic content on topics relevant to their employer, if they are able to do so, not argue that promotional content is encyclopedic . They should submit the content, and let the rest of us decide about it. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with DGG. I do not expect, ever, an article by a paid editor to be at AfD precisely because they are paid to:
  • know, understand, and implement our policies
  • write good, clean copy
  • avoid any form of advertorial
  • hit the ground running
  • eschew WP:BOMBARD
In short I expect them to write good, clean, well referenced copy. I expect it not be subject to a subsequent deletion process. Their arguing against deletion is ludicrous for a paid editor. Improving the article to seek to ensure it is kept is their job. It is either notable, or it is not. At present it is not. Period. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, DGG Although I am a paid editor, I am also a human being (shocking, I know!). If I see an article I worked on get nominated for deletion due to a perceived lack of notability, and I believe that the nominator has made a mistake in their reasoning and the subject of the article is indeed notable, I am going to defend it. Expecting a paid editor's work to be so perfect that nobody else could even possibly disagree with them seems rather strange to me. And if somebody disagrees with me and wants to delete an article I wrote, then as a human being who values their work, I'm going to try to explain why I value that article as a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to be completely silent in such matters. Of course, I will respect the AFD process, and if at the end of the day it turns out I'm wrong, I will try to accept that and move on. But for now, I want my position to at least be properly represented here for the record, which I cannot expect will automatically be done without me. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Timtrent, DGG I was privately told that I'd made a serious mistake earlier, and I want to acknowledge and apologize for that mistake. The formatting of my first comment started with the words "keep" in bold, which I included, thinking it was merely an indicator of the direction of the statement to follow, rather than a vote itself. I was totally wrong about that, and what I did actually indicated I was voting myself, which you accurately pointed out as being deeply inappropriate. I didn't understand what the issue was until now, and I apologize for my earlier defensive tone and misleading inclusion of the bolded format. I've struck out that statement above, and ask the closer not to count my comments as a vote. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yitzilitt (paid) From my perspective you are perfectly entitled to offer the opinion that it be kept as long as (since this is an article for pay) you do that from your paid account and only from that account. I see you did that. As you know you may offer the formal bolded opinion once and once only. I believe you have done that, albeit struck out. I see no objection to your removing the striking out. Authors are allowed their opinion. It would be awful were that not so.
What you may wish to consider is that those who offer rebuttals to every opinion that runs counter to their desires seem not to prevail in these discussions. Less truly is more in AfD discussions. One good arrow fired once with excellent policy based arguments is all one needs. The closing admin will weigh policy based arguments in their close. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thanks for the advice, I'll unstrike my previous strikethrough (and will add a note to the effect that I've done just that). As both you and now also Elemimele have pointed put, less is more here, and I've lowered my chance of success by my long-winded replies. If you don't mind me asking, how do you typically manage to pull off minimalism? This is my first time seriously defending an article at AfD, and I'm finding it very difficult to be concise. What I mean by that (oh god I'm doing it now aren't I) is that either 1) I'll say something, and then people's responses indicate that they misunderstood what I was trying to say, so I want to reply to be more clear about what I intended, or 2) Someone else will say something that I think is incorrect/misguided, and if nobody else has pointed that out (especially if the issue at play is a subtle one), I feel compelled to reply with a technical counter-argument. Regarding 2, I guess what you're saying is that the closer will be competent enough to figure that out on their own, so I don't need to worry about that (though it might give me a lot of anxiety lol), but for 1, the issue is probably on me and my imperfect writing skills, so I don't feel like I can assume even a closer would get what I meant to say if I don't clarify myself.
I've read the AfD guidelines of course, but I still feel rather lost when it comes to social norms here. If I'm breaking any of them now, please forgive me/let me know. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yitzilitt (paid) I will respond on your talk page. There is a danger of diverting this discussion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: (1) because all the information I can find is routine churnalism/interviews/standard promotional press-releases, and (2) because if we don't delete, we send a message that anyone can get their company advertised in Wikipedia merely by interminable polite bludgeoning and wearing everyone down with walls of text. Elemimele (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sourcing in the article and that provided by Cunard. Responding to @HighKing: The most common is to support facts within the article. The other is to establish notability. A "review of the author's experiences" with the *product* does not establish notability of the *company* this criticism of the sources isn't necessarily wrong but ignores an important nuance: our notability guidelines mainly exist to make sure that the articles we have have enough coverage that they can be useful to our readers while being based off of reliable sources. Nit-picking about whether a source covers a product or a corporation isn't productive; it would not make sense to have an article simply on the SudShare product given that the product effectively is the corporation. And no, I don't think damnatio memoriae is warranted for this company either. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between making sure articles are useful (by including information on products for example) and using product reviews as references for establishing notability. Two different tasks, two different objectives. Nit-picking about which references may be used to establish notability is called following the guidelines. If the company is notable (as established by references that meet NCORP) then by all means have a section on the product/service. HighKing++ 20:41, 9 February 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 Contrast (Conor Maynard album). 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better than You (Conor Maynard song)

Better than You (Conor Maynard song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The song is not notable per WP:NSONGS. Although charting is suggested as one of the factors that may make a song notable, this needs to come in addition to coverage from reliable sources about the song as an independent body of work. Some coverage could be taken from the album's page but there is not enough prose to warrant this. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:42, 24 January 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 keep. Star Mississippi 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Efim Jourist

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if it was just the obituaries there might be an issue, but the presence of the Die Welt article on top of that clearly showcases notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with notice requesting page improvements. Gusfriend (talk) 06:50, 3 February 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. Clear sense that this fails GNG and the Music argument hasn’t moved later voters. Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mylene Sheath

AfDs for this article:
The Mylene Sheath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

[34] seems to be a passing mention. I found [35] which also seems to be a passing mention. Sikonmina (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one reliable source to the article. One more would prove notability. Sikonmina (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are the steps you should be doing before nominating an article for deletion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are steps people should be doing before they create an article. Sikonmina (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, aside from the Billboard article, everything else I could find was a passing mention. As a result, it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll note that, consistent with the wording at WP:MUSIC, the label released music from several indisputably notable bands over a period of a number of years - e.g., Caspian, If These Trees Could Talk, Jakob, Junius, and Pelican. There is regular media coverage of these releases, which discusses the label by name. The nominator nominated this for deletion less than one hour after the last AfD closed, because that closure encouraged him to do so; please see discussions here regarding carelessness and WP:CIVIL concerns about that editor. Chubbles (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to WP:AGF; my intention isn't to violate policy. You, however, are casting aspersions and that isn't WP:CIVIL. Sikonmina (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see the editor has turned a new leaf. Chubbles (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold 3rd relist, as the last AFD also resulted in a no consensus close. Are there enough sources to pass WP:BASIC?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. IMHO the entry is WP:USEFUL but not necessarily suited for Wikipedia, as I don't see how the company passes WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG? It exits, it released some albums, but that doesn't make it notable, does it? And if this Billboard coverage is "the best" we have, then the lack of notability is very evident (since it's pretty much just a short press release or a rehash of one). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC suggests that "one of the more notable indies" can be judged by the importance of its roster and its length of operation, which is a more concrete guideline than NCORP (and, being closer to the expertise area, is more suitable). There's also some utility in being able to tie these artists together - they share an important attribute, of being on the same label, and without the label article acting basically as a list fulcrum, the artists would have to be linked together each on each page, which is awkward from an information-organization standpoint. Chubbles (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles Which takes me back to, well, what I said. This is useful but NMUSIC is just a supplement to GNG and in theory, GNG has precedence - NMUSIC just says "this kind of entity is likely to meet GNG so please do a throughout BEFORE"... And said BEFORE is not yielding sources showing WP:SIGCOV coverage, is it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So there are lots of articles (I can find dozens) of the format "x band signs to Mylene Sheath", which is typically taken here to be SIGCOV of the band rather than the label, and I'm not really sure that's the right way to think about them. There aren't many in-depth, longform profiles of the label, but I've always argued that is not a reasonable expectation for this sort of notability question. As I noted, there are some practical utilities that are afforded by label articles when thought of basically as list articles; another way we could handle the info-org problem would be convert it to a category, but I'm sure someone would eventually bring that to CfD if there's no article to support the category. Ultimately, I guess the way I look at it is, this is a label that released some genuinely important music, and that is of encyclopedic interest; if our guidelines are preventing us from giving a robust account...well, that's what WP:IAR is for, no? Chubbles (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand your argument: does WP:MUSIC have any guidance on notability? Sikonmina (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chubbles, "There aren't many in-depth, longform profiles of the label". Wait, so there are some? Links? Also, SIGCOV aside, do we have any assessments? Did anyone say that this label is important or such? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 16 February 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 Let's Go Luna!. ✗plicit 12:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Luna!: Luna's Christmas Around the World

Let's Go Luna!: Luna's Christmas Around the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, lacking significant independent coverage per WP:NF. PROD removed by creator. wizzito | say hello! 10:58, 24 January 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 participation after two relists. I considered soft deletion as an option, but given the half-hearted nomination statement, I'm going with no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kazim Can

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

Notability is under question — Toghrul R (t) 08:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 7 February 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 Rename to List of rowing clubs. Sandstein 09:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of rowing blades – Club oars

List of rowing blades – Club oars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced (tagged since 2011) gallery with no indication of notability for the topic as a group (individual oars will be verifiable, but that isn't sufficient to have an article here). Only external link is a hobby website, not the kind of source that establishes notability either. Fram (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakest Keep but certainly needs citation. This is a tough one as it empirically does NOT meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but the nature of it (a list of information relating to a broader topic) is of value to that broader topic, which itself has established clear notability. That said, following a few of the club links, it appears that most of them have their own colors (usually in the same image as found here) so this list is a nice reference, but not strictly required. -Markeer 13:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid information list. Plenty of things listed have their own articles as well, so valid navigational list as well. Dream Focus 14:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid information list. --evrik (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copying the text from someone else's vote, which they afterwards had to clarify completely as the original vote didn't make much sense, isn't really helpful. Keep as is, "keep" as a completely repurposed and retitled list, or something else? Fram (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are you being so aggressive and critical? I thought it was pretty straightforward. Why belabor the issue. I have now started adding references. --evrik (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • So no reason to keep this actually. Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a lot of negativity for a Monday morning. It's a valid list, it has sources. --evrik (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • But that's not what creates a valid list. You need sources for the topic as a whole, not just (primary) sources for the individual entries. You could create list of rowing clubs whose president is called John and find sources for that as well, that doesn't mean that it is a valid list. Fram (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's part of a broader topic, which is itself notable. --evrik (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • And...? How does this translate to a keep for this list? Notability is not inherited, that an unnamed briader topic is notable has no bearing on this topic. Fram (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it to List of rowing clubs. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would lean towards delete here but I think this needs to be looked at alongside List of rowing blades and List of rowing blades – National team oars. These articles are badly sourced and I cannot find anything other than very niche and unreliable sources speaking about this as a subject. I have a feeling that all of these fail WP:LISTN. I cannot see the argument for navigational purposes unless each individual rowing blade had its own article. To argue for navigational value this would need to be List of rowing clubs as Bduke said above. If reliable sources can be found - I say keep and merge the three. If not - delete all three. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of rowing clubs as per above. Remove all the non-notables. The distinction of just being a club is more notable than the colours of their oars (or other uniformed equipment). Ajf773 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point the consensus is to keep the article. --evrik (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, why do you add your interpretation of the consensus at a random point in the discussion? The closing or relisting admin will decide this, they don't need the article creator (or the AfD started) to tell them what the consensus is. Fram (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 1 February 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 keep. Tone 10:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Iyiegbu

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

BLP tagged for notability since July. The article makes no real claim of notability and the sources provided don’t suggest it either. I didn’t find anything else to help build a case for inclusion. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep  – The subject is famous for being rich but there's actually lots of coverage under his COMMONNAME; Obi Cubana. Princess of Ara 14:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that in sources you think are reliable and independent? Mccapra (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, [36][37][38] [39][40][41][42][43][44][45].

Keep  – something prompted me to search for his name and somehow, I found this wikipage. The entity is notable for philanthropic acts. I’ve moved the page to his known name. Reading BeansTalk to the Beans 07:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs clearer consensus especially with regard to sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Multiple reliable, third party, secondary sources that are explicitly about the subject exist, thus it meets WP:GNG. Fieari (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to my genuine surprise. There are multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as BBC News and Sahara Reporter. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:43, 30 January 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 Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012

Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Armenia did not compete in Eurovision 2012, we do not have an article for Armenia in Eurovision 2021 where they also didn't compete, it should probably be redirected. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/merge. Seems to be on the edge of notability, but most sources are either Russian or dead. Better to just cover this on the broader articles. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:48, 8 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Loren

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

Fails NBIO - lacks SIGCOV in third party sources. Also apparent UPE. KH-1 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Penny Arcade

Characters of Penny Arcade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains no secondary sources. I've not been able to find any that would indicate that this subject is notable enough for an article separate to the article on Penny Arcade. I propose merging some of this content over to the main article and deleting this one. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:13, 24 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Science, Munich

International Academy of Science, Munich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Science (2nd nomination) as unnotable, and I do not see the notability as stated in WP:ORG now either, as the article is written using the texts from IAS itself, not using RSs. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The sources are alarmingly bad and this article has been deleted before both here and on de-wiki. Here's a courtesy link to the German wp discussion, which... probably won't really help anyone, but will at least save you looking for it: [47]. The sole reliable, independent citation here as far as I can see is to Jean Dausset's obituary in Nature ([48]), which does not even mention the subject of this article. -- asilvering (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage that is significant is not in independent sources and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:35, 30 January 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. Tone 10:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Christian School

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

Sourcing wise this article is referenced to two websites that have nothing to do with the school and a dead link to a database entry. None of which work for notability. I couldn't find anything about the school when I did a WP:BEFORE either except for a few trivial name drops in two school directories. So this doesn't seem to be notable. Adamant1 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Private University of Angola

Private University of Angola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been un-referenced since at least 2009 and I couldn't find anything about the university when I did a WP:BEFORE except for trivial name drops on a couple of school ranking websites. Which aren't usable for notability. There's an external link in the article, but it seems to be more of the same. So this doesn't appear to be notable. Adamant1 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 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 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Governing Body Commission

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

Another ISKCON WP:SPAM article about its management board created to promote its board members and sourced only from self published sites. Wikipedia does not have separate article for company boards, no valid reason for making an exception for this promotional org. Venkat TL (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Easily. Complete and utter lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The coverage is entirely in ISKON sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing significant coverage. The coverage is entirely in ISKON sources, making it primary. Also per Eggishorn —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 05:49, 27 January 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 00:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Dans

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

Would have prodded, but already been deleted once through AfD. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 01:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of the criteria of WP:NPROF appear to apply. The closest is the claim that this person's blog has won awards but on closer inspection, one was a nomination and the other was a newspaper's "Best of" list. The sources necessary to comply with any other SNG or the GNG also appear to be lacking based on the article sources and searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 24 January 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 keep. Even though I commented, I haven't !voted. The sources found by User:GGT has convinced everyone who participated in this discussion that the subject meets GNG, and the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator with Special:Diff/1069651148. (non-admin closure) ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 11:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabri Kaliç

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. REFBOMB with book selling sites. Kadıköylü (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted on Turkish Wikipedia. Kind regards.--Kadıköylü (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am very, very hesitant to support deletion of someone who's obviously had a long career as an artist and a translator, and has managed to gain some attention in English sources. It's thin, at least in English, and this needs attention from a Wikipedia editor of good faith who knows Turkish. I removed the bookspam, BTW. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies I can't find any significant coverage in Turkish, sources or books, about this person apart from whatever is already in this article. I'm not able to access the books cited, so I won't make a comment on them. The first source from nediyor is pretty much a copy of the Turkish WP article (which existed back then) with a sentence being added that "the famous director and writer has passed away after suffering from a heart attack", also the reliability of this source is questionable, given that according to this piece by Hürriyet, the site filters stuff based on Tweets, which confuses me as to who is actually writing it (no author listed in the source, which makes it more difficult). The two sources of Kisafilm.com only mention him being the director of dozens of non-notable films, and it's also concerning that the 1997-98 one cites Ekşi Sözlük (simply put: Turkish 4chan, in which a so-called "entry" exists about thousands of things, even about me) as one of the used sources. The whole Sinemapro.com site is a permanent deadlink, and a Turkish search results in no mention of the website, meaning that I can't tell you anything about their credibility. A search for the author of the source doesn't result in anything apart from Wikipedia mirrors about Sabri Kaliç. The final source is from the Turkish government where they announce that they will pay money to ~65 projects varying from 2.400 Turkish Liras to 42.000TL, with a mention of Sabri Kaliç about his project getting a fund of 10.000TL. This is what I come up with, unless of course you don't think I'm in good faith. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Styxx, at least you're more interesting than me: "böyle bir şey yok." Thanks for plowing through those sources and commenting on them. But here's the thing: I would have hoped that the book citation would be an indication that there is more material--books are sort of the highest form, and usually indicate there's other material. If there isn't, that's too bad. And I'll hasten to add that Cambridge Scholars Publishing has nothing to do with Cambridge UP or whatever, and is regarded by more than one of my colleagues as a misleading name. In this case, the book is a collection of conference proceedings, which is something, but not a lot. Meaning, the book as a whole is edited, but such proceedings rarely go through the same kind of review process that most edited collections (and monographs) go through. What that means here is that it won't take much for a person or a book or a theory to appear in a book, since the bar for conference presentations is much lower than for journal publications--but I had hope. But thanks again for looking, and for commenting here.
    • 1, 3, 6, 7 are not reliable sources.--Kadıköylü (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies:, Could you explain what you are implying?--Kadıköylü (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kadıköylü, I am not implying anything. I don't dispute your comment on sources 1, 3, 6, 7, BTW. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep The only recognition this person seems to have garnered (aside from the trivia entry of a 1-frame "film") is as a translator and reference #2 appears to be the only significant, independent, reliable coverage of that. This is, unfortunately, not enough to demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through GGT's refernces, there is enough evidence that this person passes GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Drmies's suspicions are correct and it is very difficult to locate sources for such biographies even with the knowledge of Turkish, in my experience. This is his profile on TEİS, a website that we would normally accept as reliable on tr.wiki, although I must say that their quality has been recently getting sloppy and this particular one is of questionable quality, citing some unreliable sources. It does, nonetheless, confirm, in combination with this page (again not a particularly reliable source) that this person had an article on them in the 2001 and 2003 editions of Tanzimat'tan Bugüne Edebiyatçılar Ansiklopedisi. A Google Books search also provides a match to confirm. Unfortunately, only the 2010 edition of this encyclopedia is available online and Kaliç's biography is not there, so I would presume that it was removed for the 2010 edition. On top of this, here is a posthumous tribute to Kaliç in a national newspaper, and this is another one and this is another one. Here is another article about him. Here is an article on his winning an award. This article has a paragraph about his work. This thesis discusses his book at length. As such he appears to clear GNG even with the sources available online, and I would expect more to be available offline, given his rather niche career in experimental cinema. --GGT (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GGT has provided some potentially good sources. Further time is needed to give other contributors a chance to respond to them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 16:50, 2 February 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 The Dallas Morning News. Sandstein 11:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborsgo

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

Unsourced and non-notable defunct local newspaper – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a plausible case for merging, but you need to make that case, not treat this as though it were a blatantly non-notable topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Edited 17:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sdkb: the first, from dallasnews.com, is from the publisher of Neighborsgo, so it doesn't work here. The third, from SNPA, is the first article republished. The only real source there is the D Magazine, but even that hardly counts as significant coverage. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 05:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I should've caught that the SNPA was republishing. On the first source, I disagree. It's a reported article by their business reporter, not a press release. It's clearly therefore behind their editorial firewall, the entire purpose of which is to ensure independence. The Dallas Morning News is a legacy newspaper that we can trust to maintain that separation.
    That said, even if it ends up clearing the GNG bar, there's clearly not that much to say about it, so I'm fine with turning it into a redirect to The Dallas Morning News and maybe adding a sentence about it there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking on Google Books, I see two mentions:
    • Briggs, Mark (2015). Journalism next : a practical guide to digital reporting and publishing (Third ed.). Washington, D.C. p. 105. ISBN 9781506311029.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
    • Turow, Joseph (2017). Media today : mass communication in a coverging world (6th ed.). New York, NY. p. 240. ISBN 9781317401032.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
    Both take the form of examples that are on the border of the WP:100 words threshold, so they don't move me away from a redirect stance. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah on further thought, I'm completely fine with your suggestion of a redirect to The Dallas Morning News, and I think a mention there is more than fair as well. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 02:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Dallas Morning News per above, as possibly worth a brief mention there. The book sources would be helpful for that purpose, but I don't see enough for a standalone article, especially given that the only coverage I seem to find in news sources is about it being shut down. --Kinu t/c 16:13, 27 January 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 keep. Tone 12:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine 1 University

Constantine 1 University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference in the article is to another Wiki type website about the places architecture and I couldn't find anything else about it when I did a WP:BEFORE. Also the article about it in Arabic isn't any better. So I doubt this passes the notability guidelines. Maybe someone can find references I missed when I looked though. The rather ambiguous name really doesn't help things. Adamant1 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the above French chapter and English book (for a Brazilian architect working in Algeria), but also e.g. a complete Italian book[52]? Countless sources, just for the architecture. Probably some sources for its actual function as a university as well. Fram (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If all people can find are references about the building and architect instead of the university itself then create an article for the building. That doesn't mean the university is inherently notable just because one building on the campus or the guy who built it is. Hell, there could literally be a short mention of the building in the Oscar Niemeyer article. It's massively stupid to have a two sentence article about a university that's just on a building and nothing about the actual university though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then look for sources for the university and its activities as well... this, or this or this or this... Fram (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part of me saying that I did a WP:BEFORE makes you think I didn't look for sources? As far as your references that supposedly talk about it's activities, the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university. Let alone does it discuss it directly and in-depth. The second one barely does, a university adding programs is extremely WP:MILL. Woho they got 1,000 new students. You could find the same coverage for any university out there. The third and forth aren't any better. It should go without saying that my comment about how there should be information about the university in the article didn't mean adding trivial, run of the mill nonsense to it like the attendance increasing by 1,000 students in 2015. I've seen you make pretty reasonable and guideline based arguments in other AfDs. It shouldn't be that hard for you to do the same thing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't notable for being an university and thus getting attention for the things a university does. It also isn't notable for being widely, extensively discussed for its architecture. What next will you dismiss? If it only has the things a university has, then that doesn't count. If it does have an additional notable aspect (its architecture), then that should get a separate article and doesn't count towards notability for the university. Uh, no thanks, I won't play that game. Fram (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the university isn't notable for doing "things a university does." I said the references you provided don't show the university is notable because they are trivial, not in-depth, and otherwise WP:MILL. I'm sure you know the difference and what those terms mean. In the meantime I'd hardly say the university is "widely, and extensively discussed for its architecture" when the only thing being discussed about it is the auditorium and there isn't even wide or extensive discussion about that. For instance your wallpaper.com source is literally a single sentence. In no way what-so-ever is a single sentence an extensive, wide discussion. I find it extremely hard to believe that you genuinely think it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple edit conflicts, please make up your mind about what you want to write) The Wallpaper source is a reference for their being a full book about the architecture; the book is the important bit, the wallpaper source is just to show that it is not some amateur photography project but a notable book (hence my "as reviewed by..."). An earlier exposition of the same photos was also reviewed in the NY Times and in e.g. The Independent or Designweek. Oh, and The Architects journal as well... Fram (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware the book is a photo book of Oscar Niemeyer's architectural work, of which the auditorium is one of many things he's built. The book is not about the auditorium though and I doubt it covers the auditorium in any kind of meaningful detail beyond a couple of photos. Much like the references you keep providing that don't actually discuss the auditorium in any meaningful way. So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go back to my first post here perhaps, where I provided the extensive discussions of his work on this university? The photo book is just another indication of the notability of this university as a piece of architecture, and the book and exposition received a lot of coverage (from mainstream press, architecture press, ...). You seem to be willfully misinterpreting things here, which is tiring. Are you seriously still debating whether the university architecture by Oscar Niemeyer is notable, or what? Fram (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly have I willfully misinterpreted? I could really care if the auditorium is notable or not. I just don't think the single sentence articles you've cited shows that it is. Let alone does that have anything to with the notability of the university itself. Even if the auditorium is notable you haven't given a reason why the auditorium being notable makes the university notable or why keeping the article would be the best option compared to the other ones I've suggested. I'm sure you'd agree that a two sentence article about a university building isn't optimal. Even if I buy that the photo book indicates the notability of the university we can't just copy the images from it and call it good there. Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So a 15 page chapter isn't sufficient to write more than 2 sentences, a book which doesn't only have photos but also "further research into Niemeyer's Algerian work in order to explore the revolutionary politics that inspired and formed these buildings." isn't useful because despite the book being notable (but the evidence of this you mockingly reject), it contains pictures we can't use, and the other sources are not acceptable because they don't go into what makes this university more notable than a run of the mill one. You also mistakenly seem to insist that Niemeyer only built one building there, which (even though it still would be sufficient) is false, see e.g. here or here for more info. Oh, this book has two pages about "Oscar Niemeyer. The University of Constantine: Modern Kasbah of Higher Education" as well. Yeah, clearly something that only is worth "just mentioning somewhere else". I think I'm done with this quite ridiculous conversation. Fram (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When did I mockingly reject the book with the 15 page chapter? I'm pretty sure my last message is the only time I've brought it up and I didn't mock it anywhere in my message. As far as me supposedly insisting that Niemeyer only built the one building, from what I saw the articles about the picture book only mentioned the auditorium and that's what I was discussing. Obviously I'm not going to discuss buildings that the references I'm referring to had nothing to do with. In the meantime I couldn't access the book with the 15 page chapter. So I'm not going to act like I know what buildings it discusses or have a conversation about hypothetical buildings that I haven't read anything about. Get real. Your obviously just looking for things to act upset about. Maybe cut the fake performative nonsense next time. It really didn't add anything to this discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are the one who started talking about "massively stupid" and then e.g. completely rejected this source as "the first one doesn't have anything to do with the university.", even though it starts of with "Les activités scientifiques à l’Université des Frères Mentouri" and discusses an international conference organised at and by the University, and new courses given by the university in conjunction with it? Have you even looked at that article? You then dismissed the second source[53] as "extremely WP:MILL" and "trivial, run of the mill nonsense": you then focus on one line (congrats, you at least looked at the article), ignoring the other info in it, e.g. about the "ville universitiare" which had been built (39,000 beds, 28,000 classroom places (growing to 40,000). And yes, "So is there a notability guideline for buildings that says they are notable if there's a picture of them in a photo book? Or should we just say the auditorium is notable because there's a few one sentence mentions of it that for some bizarre reason you think are "wide, extensive discussions"?" is mockingly rejecting sources based on false pretenses. Your participation in this AfD really has been very disappointing on all accounts. Speaking of performative nonsense, you state "Sure there's the 15 page chapter in the book, but realistically we aren't going to squeeze enough content out of it to justify keeping the article instead of just mentioning the building somewhere else." but now admit that you haven't been able to see the chapter at all, which didn't stop you from commenting on it. Fram (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the references were stupid. The whole "we have traditionally kept all genuine degree-awarding universities. Plus easily enough material around to satisfy WP:GNG." is what's stupid. Necrothesp repeatedly cuts and pastes some form of "schools are inherently notable and there's ton of refences for this one that I'm not going not provide but claim exist" in every AfD for a school they vote in. Outside of that, sure I commented on the 15 page book to make a general statement about it, but general statements are just that, general. I don't have to know the exact words of the book to have an opinion about if we can use it to create a well written article. There isn't a world where synthesizing the material in the book would be a one to one, 15 page recreation of it either. Not even a 7.5 page, 5 page, or 3 page one. And it would be perfectly fine to have a two paragraph section about this in another article. I don't need to know how many times the book uses the word "is" to make that determination either. Your just looking for extremely minor things to take issue with for some reason. So I'm done with the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, of course) No matter what Necrothesp may do wrong in other AfDs, in this case they actually added a source to the article, so they did more than just claim. And you may not have said the references were stupid, but you called them nonsense and having an article based on them stupid. That you know out of hand that a 15 page article can not be the basis for a 3 page article without even seeing the original article, with some irrelevant statement about the prevalence of the word "is" in it, doesn't really give your whole reasoning here much credibility. But then again, you dismiss the book because it only has photo's, even though that isn't true at all, you dismiss newspaper sources because they include a mention of the increase in number of students, disregarding the remainder of the information, you reject a source because it isn't about the university, even though it very clearly is, you maintain for way too long the false belief that they only designed the one building, without anything to actually base this on, you confuse again and again sources added to show that the photobook about the university architecture is an important book with sources about the University itself, and so on. The problem isn't that you don't "need" to know anything, the problem is that you don't "want" to know anything that contradicts your initial impression which started this AfD. Getting an AfD wrong isn't a problem, many of my AfDs don't end in deletion: scrutinizing sources also isn't a problem, and pointing out "actual" issues with them: even pointing out why the !votes by some people should be disregarded isn't a problem, if you at least make sure that your argument to do so is correct. But continuing with all of these in the face of all evidence that you are wrong is a problem. Fram (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You really like to move the bar don't you? If I had of known this is how you would respond to me suggesting an alternative to deletion I probably would have kept the suggestion to myself. I defiantly didn't think that you would flip out over it like you have. Lesson learned. The weird thing about it is that I agreed with you about the 15 page article and that we could probably turn it into a few paragraphs. I also agreed with a couple of points you made, like that the auditorium isn't the only part of the university he built. Plus merging it to another article wasn't in my original nomination. But sure dude, I don't want to know anything that contradicts the initial impression that started the AfD. Whatever. Have fun boxing ghosts. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. It's a university, not a diploma mill. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 27 January 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 keep. But merge Troutman Sanders and Pepper Hamilton, the predecessor firms, into this article. Sandstein 16:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troutman Pepper

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

insufficient evidence for notability o this law firm. The references are mere notices of routine business events, or a report of one oft he many cases every law firm by their very nature will engage in. It is not notable to simply win one suit for wrongful conviction. A google news search shows nothing more than announcements or their own advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should note that Troutman Pepper has itself been around for a fairly short time; its two predecessor law firms are both of considerable age and are clearly notable themselves. RexSueciae (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient coverage for establishing notability, indicates lack of notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but with "Troutman Pepper" being the title of the article (so I guess merge with Troutman Sanders). I don't know how familiar y'all are with law firms, but Troutman Pepper is pretty well up there. Most of the really noteworthy events described in reliable sources will have been under the name Troutman Sanders, that is true. It should be common sense to simply continue the article with information on its post-merger operations, especially since the firm kept the Troutman name. RexSueciae (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I am changing my vote to Keep. It was pointed out to me that both Troutman Sanders and Pepper Hamilton, the predecessor firms to Troutman Pepper, have wiki articles. The article for Pepper Hamilton contains the following line about the post-merger law firm: "The combined firm has 1,100 attorneys, making it the largest purely American law firm and one of the 50 largest law firms in the world." That characteristic all but guarantees notability at *some* point. Yes, Troutman Pepper is new, and hasn't had that much coverage of its activities thus far. Even so, I can find right off the bat multiple news articles about them. You'll need a subscription to law.com but it's clear that the legal press thinks that Troutman Pepper is notable; the firm has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Consider also that Bloomberg Law, one of the premier legal research platforms, published this commentary article from several Troutman Pepper attorneys (two partners and two associates) weighing in on the activities of state attorneys general. Would they do that if Troutman Pepper were not a reputable law firm? Finally, consider AboveTheLaw (the TMZ of the legal industry, with about the same reputation, although it does tend to have its finger on the pulse of things), which has multiple articles tagged Troutman Pepper, including some promising news stories on the law firm awarding bonuses to its attorneys. tl;dr it's notable, it's got sources, and sure as anything it's gonna have more sources in the near future. RexSueciae (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the reasons well outlined by RexSueciae. Although a new firm, its predecessors began in the 1890s and combined is now 49th of the AmLaw 100 firms even more notable as a major 23 office, 1,000+ attorneys, American and world law firm. With all the stub entries not subject to deletion, this entry should be treated the same with it being left for further edits and additions. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - large firm that was created through the merger of two earlier firms, both considered notable enough to have their own articles. History just needs to be cleaned up. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all 3 firms into a single article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' all 3 firms into a single article. I apologize for not having thought of this possibility. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I ran into a similar situation when I saw a proposal to merge J. Walter Thomson and Wunderman into one article. Here's how I addressed it Wunderman Thompson. The two previous articles were rewritten into the past tense, and then the post merger history goes in the new article. It's a lot less work than trying to merge, given the amount of each predecessor's history. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote is a good idea. Went ahead and added it in, just so people can't miss the two predecessor firms. RexSueciae (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm willing to withdraw the deletion request, but others have also commented. I suggest that the procedure suggested by Timtempleton would be the best way to go forward. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Davidgoodheart. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 2 February 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. Tone 12:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flat No.4B

Flat No.4B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film with no major cast members. Fails WP:NFILM with no reviews from notable publications as well as WP:N due to the paucity of other references. Has been made by a single purpose editor whose name also indicates conflict of interest Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure how this is considered well sourced. For your reference we consider only references from notable publications while evaluating notability, and a list of such publications can be found at WP:ICTFFAQ. The quality of the references already on the page are listed below
  • [54] has 1 small line which says the lead actor won a best debutant actor award. The award is not notable and as with a lot of awards in Kerala, it is quite evident that award was bought by the actor, with the organisers adding that many films were not considered as they were not submitted. Also WP:NOTINHERITED applies here.
  • [55] is 6 lines in a small press release type article from Times of India. Also to be noted here is that the banner is Kautilya Films which is also the name of the editor who created this Wikipedia article.
  • [56] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur and the movies that they were showing on a particular day. Unsure if this adds any value to the article apart from indicating that the movie was released in a run down theatre while the other biggies occupied the bigger theatres.
  • [57] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur as above
  • [58] is dead
  • [59] is a press release
  • [60] is just a listing of the movie
  • [61] is also dead
  • [62] is also dead

WP:NFILM requires 2 reviews from major publications. I was unable to find any review - from sources which are reliable or even from those considered unreliable. Also with 22 IMDB ratings [63] it is quite evident that the movie did not get a wide release which would have made it notable, or even worthy of reviewing by publications. Delete it should be. Jupitus Smart 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - first, WP:NFILM does not require reviews but rather lists the existence of film reviews as possible evidence of notability. Secondly, dead links could be retrieved using archives - it doesn't mean that sources do not exist, it requires clean up. Your claim that IMDb ratings indicate the kind of release a movie received is not based on any factual information. Also, notoability of films does not derive from how big their release was. As for the user who created the film article being named just as the production company - it still remains in the form of a speculation, which I personally do believe too but can't prove, nor does it matter as far as the film's notability is concerned anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 13:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Two reviews are actually required when it does not meet WP:GNG or if it does not meet any of the other requirements at WP:NFILM. Please indicate how this meets WP:GNG from the quality of references as discussed above. Also it is quite evident from the URL of the deadlinks that they are nothing more than picture galleries which also does not impart any notability - meaning finding archives also won't be very useful. I was not using the IMDB ratings as a metric of notability, but merely implying that the lack of coverage in reliable sources, which is a required metric for us, is a reason why nobody has watched this movie. I would also request you to indicate why notability is met, instead of harping that notability is met without any factual basis. You may choose to ignore the conflict of interest provided you can indicate notability is met, in which case cleanup would suffice, but in the absence of coverage in reliable sources this does not meet the requirements to remain. Jupitus Smart 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree. :) If the community decides to delete it, so be it. My entire perception of Wikipedia, especially in regard to which articles should stay and which shouldn't, is different, I guess. I always improve Indian cinema-based articles which are up for deletion, and I would do with this film, which I know nothing about, too, if I had more time. Shahid • Talk2me 15:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we both are inclusionists as I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umma (1960 film) and in some other discussions. I am also happy that someone is actually believing in the need for protecting Malayalam movie articles and would have been more glad if you had showed up earlier when some of the classic oldies were deleted (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gajakesariyogam among others). But this movie is not one among those which is why I have nominated this for deletion. I might also nominate the lead Riaz M. T. which is also probably made by the same syndicate. Happy editing. Jupitus Smart 01:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lacks reliable reviews for NFILM and no indication of meeting GNG. Considering the film is from 2014, its not unreasonable to expect a couple of reviews to show up online. However, offline sources may exist. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:05, 24 January 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 merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film). Stifle (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Am So Proud of You

I Am So Proud of You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this is just the second part of It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A no vote to delete/merge from me. This is not 'just' the second part of "It's Such a Beautiful Day". This was an animated short film that was released theatrically in 2008 and received multiple awards and praise as a standalone piece. It was not edited into the feature film version of the longer story ("It's Such a Beautiful Day") until 2012. For that matter, the proposal to delete and merge the page for "Everything Will Be OK", the first film, is also a mistake. "Everything Will Be OK" was a standalone animated short film that was shortlisted for an Academy Award in 2007 and won the Grand Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. These were originally released as individual short films, viewed by audiences for years that way, and should remain listed here as such. Also, my apologies if I'm not using this interface correctly! Ang-pdx (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Sequels can be notable tool. The claim "The film won 27 film festival awards" is worth considering, but I note the "failed verification" tag. Right now the article passes notability based on unverified claims, so the question is, will someone claim said claims are fake or exaggerated? If not, I'd lean towards keeping this while retaining/adding copyediting templates, some of which are already present. This may be the case of a notable topic, poorly referenced - but I didn't bother doing my own BEFORE this time (hence, no vote, just comment). Ping me if more sources are found (or their lack becomes more apparent) if you'd like me to vote one way or another. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to It's Such a Beautiful Day (film) The references in the article and results of searches do not support independent notability of this film under NFILM or GNG. The references that are available in independent, reliable sources are not significantly about this film but to the prior film. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Eggishorn, that is simply not true. This article is just in need of more work. This film screened in competition at Sundance, which is notability alone. It was later released on its own, standalone DVD:

https://www.amazon.com/Proud-You-Everything-Will-Chapter/dp/B003JOS9U2/ref=sr_1_7?crid=20MV1HB8QCRYM ...I've added an additional reference, from the filmmaker's own website. This article should stay put. Ang-pdx (talk) 19:08, 2 February 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Wgullyn (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Technology

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

Virtually no coverage of this company in WP:RS and most cited works are routine business actions. The International Business Times citation is the product of a Forbes list indicating commercial success but not significance. Other references are either trade press, press releases, or articles about other companies. Searches turn up little to no mainstream news coverage of this company despite it being around for 30 years. FalconK (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that the Webby and the PGA Tour sponsorship really contribute to notability here. The company seems to have mostly kept its head down after the Webby, so the only thing to say is they won the award. These kinds of awards generally hint at the existence of notable things, but "developed a really good healthcare app for a hospital" isn't exactly notable. And they seem to have bought a APGA Tour sponsorship - again, that's really all there is to say about that. So that's how we get to this article, which is the same kind of size and milestones information that can be written about almost any company indistinctly. To back up notability, we're left with the recent change in lobbyists (a single event) and a Forbes profile of the founders. This company keeps such a low profile that, even though it has some of the things that notable companies have, it has a weak to nonexistent claim to notability on its own. FalconK (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the subject is not of high-importance and has a weak extent of notability. It barely passes the notability guidelines as a company, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Multi7001. I contributed to this article via edit requests, and as of this discussion, outside of the quarterly earnings reports in the New York Times and a few mentions in Google Scholar articles/interviews ([69], [70] and [71]), I have not been able to find additional coverage that would warrant a strong keep per WP:SIGCOV, but there is enough for a weak keep. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (refraining from voting due to a company connection): 20th largest private company in the US[1] and the biggest black-owned company in the US[2][3] Cryout (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is notable to an extent. The Insider Monkey article is not a reliable source. The Forbes page is an indicator that it may be worthy of inclusion, but generally, editorial articles with SIGCOV are more useful to establish notability. And the Black Enterprise is also a similar indicator and was not cited in the page before the AfD nom. The page should remain, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Top x of y lists are generally agreed to be insufficient to establish notability in WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm looking for (and not finding) hard evidence of notability, more than just hints that notability should exist. Of the latter, there are plenty. The former are lacking. FalconK (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "America's Largest Private Companies". Forbes. Retrieved 2022-01-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Haqqi, Ty (2021-01-19). "10 Biggest Black-Owned Companies in the US". Insider Monkey.
  3. ^ "Top 100". Black Enterprise. 2018. Retrieved 2022-01-18. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Comment= ignored (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:57, 24 January 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. The keep arguments are very weak on policy based rationales. I considered draftifying so the style issues can be dealt with, but there is no point in doing that if it still can't get past NPROF. If someone can turn turn up some publications that get sufficient citations to stand a chance of satisfying those who argued the subject's citation rate is too low, then I would be willing to restore as a draft. If not, it would be a wasted effort. SpinningSpark 17:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Korngreen

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

Promotional piece about a non-notable subject, which was created by a paid editor. Seems to exist for the sole purpose of improving the subject's SEO on Google FASTILY 08:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would suggest Keep and Draftify. He has five papers with more than 100 citations that put's him over the line. Not the most salubrious of NPROF qualifications, not in the top tier by any means, but more than borderline. The article is puffy and promo, written in that jocular manner, your find with paid editors. I really don't like paid editors. If it is draftified, I can do the work to copyedit it. scope_creepTalk 09:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles by this paid editor need checked. I don't know why it wasn't draftified before. scope_creepTalk 09:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or delete. This is a relatively high-citation field, and I do not think the subject stands out well above the average professor in it. These are the Scopus citation metrics for his 50+ coauthors with >16 papers (cutoff determined by the lowest paper # of a coauthor who is a senior scientist or holds another pure research position beyond postdoc; limiting to just professors would raise all values significantly):
Total citations: average: 5512, median: 1969, Korngreen: 1678.
Papers: avg: 91, med: 55, K: 68.
h-index: avg: 28, med: 24, K: 24.
Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 1071, med: 200, K: 192. 2nd: avg: 307, med: 139, K: 94. 3rd: avg: 231, med: 112, K: 80. 4th: avg: 190, med: 92, K: 74. 5th: avg: 144, med: 84, K: 69.,
JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see no evidence that this researcher is any more significant than average, or there is enough independent coverage to write a wikipedia article about him. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I wrote this article and mentioned COI) Biophysics of ion channels is a small field with a relatively low citation rate. However, Korngreen's papers are cited for many years as is evident from the top cited papers.Ovedc (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Then why is he at or below the median in Scopus citations among other researchers in this field...?, JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep reasonable GS citations in high-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep (I wrote this article and mentioned COI) This article comply with the specific notability guideline for academics (WP:PROF):
    1) Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work - citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.!
    5) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources
    Thenks - Ovedc (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPROF also says either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Where are the extremely highly cited works or the substantial number with significant citations? What is your justification for When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? JoelleJay (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A known biophysicist, who specializes in brain research. A professor in a known university and the head of the Multidisciplinary Gonda Brain Research Center there since 2019. There are articles about other scientific professors like him. I don't find a reason to delete. Danny-w (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A scholar? Ping User:Piotrus, it's more of his territory. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Summoned, I appear. And I am not impressed. "Korngreen work is influencing the brain research for over a decade" - according to whom? Puffery amidsts what appears to be pretty average career. Delete might be a bit harsh, but I think drafity will be a good compromise, assuming the author is still active and is willing to go through the AfC process. And it may be a few years before the subject meets NPROF. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or at most draftify to remove the puffery an other signs of coi writing, and then reconsider. The notability is borderline. Scientists are judged by the importance of their best work, that's whats influential . There's no point looking at how many unimportant papers someone did--unimportant is unimportant. His citations are 246, 146, 111..... In many fields I would considee that notable ,but not in biomedicine . Particularly telling is that the only paper with over 200 cites is from 2000, when he was still a post-doc. That's not independent work; it was coauthored with his advisor, Bert Sakmann Comments like A professor in a known university show lack of knowledge of WP that's pretty much the definition of INDISCRIMINATE. It is a little surprising to find someone in what would appear to be a high level position with so few citations. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources establish in what way he is in fact distinguished or influential in his field or provide independent substantive coverage about him and/or his research. Number of citations should not be used to assume this. Reywas92Talk 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find JoelleJay's analysis persuasive. The citation-based argument for wiki-notability just doesn't stand up, and we don't have anything else substantial to go on. A full professorship and what appears to be a mid-level administrative position aren't what our criteria look for. In many cases, paid editing should be wasted money, and I think this is one of those times. XOR'easter (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable GS citations in high-cited field. Crocodile2020 (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No part of WP:NPROF says a hand-wavey "reasonable" number of citations is adequate for notability. It says "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Sure, Korngreen and his co-authors have a "reasonable" number of citations, but that is not necessarily "subtstantial" or "significant" in this field and is without clear evidence of how he "has made significant impact", is wholly insufficient. Reywas92Talk 14:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per JoelleJay. There might possibly be an article that could be written about this, but WP:TNT applies. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 2 February 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. This is a rather split opinion, so I'll close it as a no consensus, leaning keep. Tone 10:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Sunderland

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

BLP1E applies, aside from being unwillingly viral on pornhub and being fined for it, It appears that all the sourcing is standard porn ecosystem noise, and there is not sustained evidence of notability outside a single event, Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as creator You can't be serious. In what reality, is The Independent part of the so-called "standard porn ecosystem"? In fact, the only specifically porn-related source here is AVN which was used to confirm that she signed a contract with Brazzers in 2020, even that could be replaced with Paper, which isn't a pornographic magazine. The source of the other job she had in college pre-dates the indecent exposure event. So how is this any different than Mia Khalifa (now a good article) who only had a "career" for 3 months and was only "notable" for being "number 1 on Pornhub" and performing in a hijab. Did she willingly go viral?Sunderland didn't disappear into obscurity (if that were the case, I never would have created this legitimate article and she still gets coverage to this day), she started a career. Two years after this, Rolling Stone was calling her "adult performer Kendra Sunderland" in a story about Ron Jeremy of all people. I'll never understand the goal post moving that goes on when the article is in the scope of porn. Not all of them have to write an op-ed in the New York Times. Trillfendi (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E surely doesn't apply as a successful porn actress with over 2 million Instagram followers can hardly be a "low profile individual." The Library Girl incident generated enough coverage to meet GNG, but it is not the only thing she is known for. That the Daily Beast published her article on being kicked off of IG is proof of that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plenty of coverage about the "event" in the library, not sure it's enough for an article. Nothing of substance after than, seems run of the mill porn actress. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If she really was known as Library Girl it would be sensible to create a redirect, if the article survives AfD. PamD 08:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Porn amateur busted in morals incident is a WP:DOGBITESMAN story in sex work. A minor porn award after going professional doesn't break this biography out of 1E territory. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by significant coverage in [72],

[73] and [74], notable has been established. Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two of those 3 sources, the New York Post and the Daily Star, are unreliable tabloids per WP:RSPS. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also per WP:RSP, AVN is generally reliable. So that alone settles the issue; she has significant coverage in secondary RS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure RSP accurately reflects the conclusion at [RSN which said the magazine is generally reliable, so stuff published in the site is not covered by that. Is your source printed or online? Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily surpasses GNG. BLP1E does not apply since she did not remain a low-profile individual per Pawnkingthree after the incident.[75][76] And yes, AVN ecosystem noise does count as RS.[77] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Morbidthoughts and Pawnkingthree; easily meets GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typical BLP1E. Being a non-notable porn actress following a one-off wider-than-the-porn-industry story is all that is here. Zaathras (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If she had never been heard from again after the library incident, there might be a case for BLP1E. But she became a porn actress instead, so she has not remained a "low profile individual" as BLP1E requires. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, she did remain a low-profile individual. "Low-profile" is about reality, not intent. Becoming an unremarkable, run-of-the-mill porn actress does not get her up out of 1-event territory. Zaathras (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No that's not what low-profile means. Someone who actively seeks publicity, as Sunderland does, is not low-profile regardless of whether or not she is notable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse but doing porn does not automatically make you publicity seeker. That’s ridiculous and a total distortion of how this works. Being outed involuntarily cannot create an assumption that you must get a scarlet letter just because you work in porn. If that hadn’t of happened we wouldn’t have this article at all as she is otherwise not notable and no more attention seeking than any other porn performer. Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Acting in Hollywood makes you high-profile but acting in pornographic movies means you've been outed? One is a publicity seeker if they're doing high-profile high-visibility work, doing interviews on that work, attending promotional events as the 'line-up' in the event, etc... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject lacks sustain reliable source coverage over a significant time. She does not pass notability guidelines over the long term, and the coverage of the one event is not in and of itself enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where is independent coverage outside BLP1E. This is typical BLP1E fare. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have already given examples of articles that came before or years after her so-called claim to fame, which contribute to significant / sustained coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment surprised this was still open; I've looked at the new info above, still nothing notable. One "incident" then just blended into the woodwork in the porn industry. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such blending is called a career. Trillfendi (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ProcrastinatingReader. Seems to meet the necessary bars. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' utterly trivial. The notability is one event. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pawnkingthree Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC per review of available sources. WP:BLP1E that does rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two pages in the peer reviewed Feminist Media Studies paper here. Besides the library coverage ([78], [79], [80], [81]) There's an assortment of media interest over the past 7 years, she has moved past the library video: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]. Pikavoom Talk 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets look at this shall we. The first lot of sources all relate to the library incident and later coverage is in the context of amateur porn or caming making the point that this is flash in the pan 1E territory without enduring independent coverage. So lets look at the evidence of enduring coverage cited; which is hardly making a case. Newsweek interview about caming, mens health? Sensational interview and quotes about dirty talk, indian express, reprint w/o a byline from a Daily Mail article, pornstar makeup FFS and tabloids like Daily Star & NY Post. None of this is an arguable case that there is enduring coverage so proving the 1E case. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You left out the part where the Feminist Studies journal article was published 2 years after the incident in your mistaken interpretation of BLP1E. Enduring independent coverage. You also have a mistaken understanding of what secondary vs. primary means in dismissing the Newsweek article as an interview. Reporters are allowed to interview people to write a story. This wasn't a transcript of a q&a here. Arguing that it's the same is dishonest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sufficient sources meet WP:GNG. Definitely not WP:BLP1E as she has coverage for more than the single event. Reliable sources exist. Fieari (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:GNG, fn3, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works, so the initial independent news coverage about the library incident (i.e. not churnalism, and not information directly from her, e.g. as in tabloid-style clickbait publications such as post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK) does not contribute much to notability. And per reliable sources, she was a WP:VICTIM because her video was uploaded to multiple websites without her consent, so the article should exist only if consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, [she] had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The available sources do not show the event is "well-documented" or "historic", and her inclusion in two and a half paragraphs at the beginning of a Feminist Media Studies article is not enough to support "historic significance", while later tabloid-style promotional coverage helps emphasize the lack of historic significance. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The video was uploaded by a stranger without consent yet she consented to start a career in pornography after that. If she was a random person, it just would not be the same story. I mean, she still calls herself KSLibraryGirl. Trillfendi (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:ENTERTAINER notability also does not appear supported - the criteria that may have applied, i.e. the "cult" following, has been deprecated. Feminist Media Studies comments, "the case of Kendra Sunderland is also recognizable as an increasingly ordinary narrative about working on the edges of mainstream cultural industries," so there does not appear to be objective support for unique or innovative contributions. This article reminds me of a concept I attribute to DGG, which is essentially when insufficient independent and reliable support for notability exists, we are typically left with promotional content, and based on the type and quality of the sources, this appears to apply here. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's something else I often say, that in some forms of entertainment, there can be very little difference between promotional and non-promotional content. The manner of ever good descriptive writing is not always distinguishable. If we completely eliminated promotional content in some subfields of entertainment we'd have no articles on current performers. I've withdrawn my delete--I'm undecided. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 January 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 and thank you Stifle for adding a new word to my vocabulary. SpinningSpark 17:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Dwyer (baseball)

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

non-notable, non-female non-minority ([90]) former baseball player who played in one MLB game with no birthday, no deathday, no batting stance and no throwing stance. The only indicator of notability I could find was an entry in The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball: Biographies of 1,084 Players, Owners, Managers and Umpires, which is not enough to establish notability on its own. Because he is mentioned as having a minor-league career in The Rank and File, I searched Newspapers.com for additional information, but nothing came up. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If one routine source and one non-routine source are enough to keep an article... Therapyisgood (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, how is being a "non-female non-minority" relevant? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agreed, there were few, if any, minority, female baseball players in pro-ball in the 19th Century. Non issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Penale52 and poor nomination rationale. Wizardman 17:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable Major League Baseball player. Spanneraol (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1882 Cleveland Blues season per WP:PRESERVE, but also per failing WP:GNG. Two articles is not enough when his career was so incredible short and had no impact on anything. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if one WP:ROUTINE article and one source were enough to keep an article, Lewis (baseball) would have been kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination), which was merged (former FA). Still fails WP:GNG. Someone please tell me how they are distinguishable. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is for "Lewis", we didn't even know his name. We know the given name of Dwyer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. As can be seen in the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski, NSPORT/NBASE make it very clear that a topic that meets a SNG but doesn't have enough coverage is non-notable. Alvaldi (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On your Vainowski point, (1) that is not NBASE, and (2) several editors have agreed that was the incorrect closure and I plan on bringing it to DRV soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vainowski was indeed NGRIDIRON which is, like NBASE, part of NSPORTS. So the point still stands, it is very clear that a topic that meets a SNG but doesn't have enough coverage is non-notable. The verdic in the Vainowski AfD was spot on in that regard. Alvaldi (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Penale52's sources, and I agree with Wizardman that nom provided a poor deletion rationale. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, (1) very poor deletion rationale (non-female non-minority? Really? So we're going to base notability on gender/skin color now?) (2) per Penale52's sources and (3) per passing of NBASE. And while topics ultimately have to meet GNG according to NSPORT, I'm a bit more "generous" on older (especially very old topics such as this one) topics as coverage can be very hard to dig up. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is time for us to abandon the absurd conceit that someone can become notable for one game. Actors need two significant roles in major productions for notability. We should have the same standard at least for sportspeople, and delte articles on people who only played one game at the top level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree that the non-female/non-minority garbage was bewildering, but Penale52's sources don't cut it. The first is routine sports coverage that by longstanding consensus does not contribute towards notability, and the second is effectively an interview of the subject, which explicitly does not count towards notability. As far as this being an older subject, there is no guideline or policy which waives the requirements of WP:V due to the age of the subject. The only possible policy-based answer to "It's hard to find reliable sources for a subject because it was a long time ago" is "Then an article on the subject cannot be sustained." Ravenswing 15:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Also per NBASE. Under the rationale by the nominator, a great many 19th century baseball players would be deleted (white, male, unknown batting and throwing information, lack of contemporary coverage unearthed from 130+ years ago). Neonblak talk - 15:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, yes. There are likely a number of sub-stubs on 19th century baseball players with a near-to-complete lack of information, sourced or otherwise, and applying the GNG to those articles (as NSPORTS criteria agree is applicable) would result in their deletion or redirection to appropriate list articles. This is a feature, not a bug. Ravenswing 03:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I do understand your (and others') rationale, if the deletion of possibly 100s (?) of articles is deemed necessary, this seems like a wholly inefficient method of rectifying a largely static issue. Neonblak talk - 17:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1882 Cleveland Blues season as an obvious ATD. There are no suitable in depth sources. 1882 is within the era where sources should be able to be found if they exist. The argument that he meets NBASE by itself is not sufficient to keep the article - we must be able to find more than that. As is, we have a one sentence stub with little or no chance of significant improvement any time soon. If sources are found the redirect can be removed and a proper article created. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per NBASE. Rlendog (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I really want to vote "keep" here, but I'm unable to find anything beyond what's already reported here. The excerpt from the Nemec book is really a summary of the game and I can't call it in-depth coverage of Dwyer. I could maybe be persuaded that the first item cited by Penale is at the outer edge of SIGCOV but the second item is a pure Q&A and is from the same newspaper --- either way, that's only one source (the Free Press) and GNG asks us for SIGCOV in "multiple" reliable sources. Also, the article's been around for 12 years so it's hard to say that there hasn't been adequate time to search for SIGCOV. The only other option would be an "IAR" vote, and I might go there if I had better evidence of an extensive career. In this case, I can't bring myself to go there. Redirecting or merging to 1882 Cleveland Blues season would definitely be better than deleting. As for the nominating rationale, I can't find any sources referring to Dwyer's race/ethnicity and suggest that piece is unnecessary and should be omitted from future noms. Cbl62 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the Nemec excerpt and it does detail to some degree his minor league career, so it could be argued that it is at the outer, outer edge of SIGCOV, and it does come from a highly respected authority in David Nemec. Count me as neutral. Cbl62 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the season page per WP:PAGEDECIDE. That we can verify that during this team's season, a player played one bad game, got hounded by the press, and quit, is exactly the kind of interesting information that should be in the article about the season. There's little reason to put it on a separate page though. Levivich 04:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, I don't see any problems in keeping this as a separate article. Deleting "non-notable, non-female non-minority" is not the way to solve biases, the focus should instead be on writing new articles about women, minorities, etc. Also, appears to pass NBASE. NemesisAT (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantive coverage about this person. Just a mere database entry for a single appearance is obscenely insufficient for notability. NBASE is a presumption of notability, but that is apparently not upheld with actual sources. Why would there be for a single appearance in 1882??? The professionalism and coverage of baseball today that would make this guess true (which includes working one's way up through university and minor league play) does not apply then. Reywas92Talk 14:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Since there's speculation of a longer career in Iowa and Colorado, I'm willing to give folks some time to find sourcing and expand this into a viable article, otherwise it can be speedily deleted after 6 months. –dlthewave ☎ 17:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with others that the coverage found of him is routine and/or not secondary/independent, and therefore does not meet GNG. As NSPORT requires GNG be met, arguments that NBASE suffices are incorrect. If someone wants to find sources for him he can be listed at the baseball project. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets NBASE as a major league player. I think Penale52 has discovered enough sources to meet GNG as well. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Editorofthewiki Which independent secondary sources do you think bring him to GNG? The three I looked at were the brief write-up in an encyclopedia that gives every "19th c. player, major owner, manager, league official, and regular umpire" a biography; a few lines in a routine game report; and a shallow interview (not usable for notability as it's primary and non-independent). JoelleJay (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is sufficient. Even if every 19th century player got a write-up in the book, that does not discount it as a source. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And that still doesn't make it the multiple pieces of SIGCOV required by GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1882 Cleveland Blues season. Even with the sources from Penale52, there isn't enough significant coverage for there to be an encyclopedic article on this person. His seasonal stats from the only season he played are the only substantial facts we know about him, and those can be sufficiently covered in the season article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBASE. I do not accept the claim that passing a subject notability guideline is not sufficient, otherwise all those guidelines would be otiose. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stifle, he doesn't actually pass a subject notability guideline. NSPORT is the SNG, and it says GNG is necessary to merit an article and that all subguidelines on its page merely predict which subjects might meet GNG (see the 1st and 3rd sentences in the lead; the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th sentences in the Applicable policies section; the 1st and 2nd sentences of SPORTCRIT; and FAQs #1, 2, and 5). NSPORT isn't supposed to be used as an alternative conduit to notability, but rather as a collection of rules-of-thumb that focuses editors on the athletes most likely to have received SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with all of the reasons mentioned above to keep. Why would being a female or minority give the same level of exposure priority over one of any other sex or race. Equality right?WikiGuruWanaB (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the season page unless more information about them can be added. Gusfriend (talk) 02:23, 3 February 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. The "keep" opinions, while in the majority, make weak (or no) arguments: there is broad community consensus that all article topics must have substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources (WP:GNG). Only one "keep" opinion even cites a source, and it is not even really about this topic, but about a subtopic ("exchange stations"). Apart from that, nobody else has found any coverage approaching the requirements of WP:GNG. Sandstein 18:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stations with no exit

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

No evidence that this list topic is in any way notable as a group. Fram (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting topic. Given time I'm sure sources could be found to support the entries in this list. NemesisAT (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not really convincing... Individual entries may have sources, but you need sources that addess the topic as a group. Fram (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Currently the article doesn't cite any sources at all, whether for the individual stations or as a group. If the article is kept it should probably be renamed to something like Railway stations without public access to clarify what these are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I'm sure sources can be found!" without identifying any such sources is worthless and a waste of everyone's time. I am unconvinced this is encyclopedic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per reasons for original PROD (I was going to PROD this article, but Fram beat me to it by a few seconds) and nom. The fact that it is an "interesting topic" is not a valid policy reason to keep this article. Singularity42 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Singularity42: You used "del" in the edit summary, and your text indicates you are arguing for deletion, but you wrote "Keep" as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm Because I'm half-asleep and wrote "Keep" instead of "Delete". Fixed now. Singularity42 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article overlaps in scope with Special-purpose railway stations in the United Kingdom, for which see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special purpose UK railway stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support a merge with the above article as an alternative to deletion provided the information contained in this one is retained. NemesisAT (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An issue to be resolved in this case is that while Special-purpose railway stations in the United Kingdom is neatly sized and based on the UK, the current article is based on the World; and would require the combined article to become Special purpose UK railway stations; with that article's table potentially becoming unwieldy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not require inclusion just because it is interesting. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is my first article so there are some eye sores around, but there is no comprehensive list of railways stations with no available public entrance (either on Wikipedia or elsewhere). I am fine editing the name for ease of understanding mind. Essexman03 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Essexman03, I am concerned that this reasoning - while in good faith - is contrary to Wikipedia's policy that Wikipedia is not a webhost. If no reliable, secondary sources have noted this topic as notable elsewhere, then it is not a topic for inclusion as a Wikipedia article yet. Singularity42 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note: I've just reverted a controversial move by page creator Essexman03 to Railway stations without public access as that is not a BOLD move to make while the article is under an active AfD, and while not prohibited, it is disruptive, see WP:AFDEQ. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: @Djm-leighpark Apologies for the name change edit; I was not aware that no major changes could be made to alleviate the situation. Mea culpa. Essexman03 (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One article about such stations in Europe is at Gardner, Nicky; Kries, Susanne (18 September 2020). "Changing trains". Hidden Europe: Letter from Europe. No. 2020/26. Nempnet (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are not reliable secondary sources about this topic in existence, as admitted by the article creator, that is a clear reason to delete this article. Wikipedia lists should not be based on original research or original synthesis of sources to create a new topic that has not been covered reliably in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The (Gardner & Kries, 2020) source introduced by Nempnet seems to give implications for alternate nomenclature such as: exchange-only stations. That leads on to private stations (Such at MGWR's Clonhugh for George Forbes, 7th Earl of Granard (Rowledge, 1995, p.164)) and viewing-only stations perhaps more common on tourist/heritage railways; all and perhaps more being encompassed by special purpose stations. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Djm-leighpark raises a good point here. If this article is kept, a name change is definitely in order. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a notable topic. Easy enough to source. Rename to List of stations with limited access or something similar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another Necrothesp vote without any evidence to back it up, a rather bad habit that. Fram (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're saying that the lack of exits from these stations is not sourced? I think you'll find it is quite clearly sourced. But, in my opinion, a really bad habit is to continually attack anyone who disagrees with you. AfD is about opinion, not bureaucracy. I have expressed mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's obviously not what I am saying, but please keep trying. Or read the AfD nomination instead. And no, AfD is not about opinion: opinion which isn't supported by facts is commonly disregarded by closers and not taken into account when deciding upon consensus. I only attack opinions from people who should know better but continue with the same empty statements. Fram (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia would be a much happier place if you didn't attack anyone's opinion. Would it really be that difficult to just let editors post at AfD without lambasting everyone who disagrees with your views? Come on, it's not that hard. Try it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wouldn't it be a much better place if you didn't equate yourself with "everyone"? Fram (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't just keep an article solely based on "seems like a notable topic". Link us a few sources covering the topic in detail and maybe then you will persuade people. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We can if there is a consensus to do so and/or folks effectively argue why it improves the encyclopedia, per WP:IGNOREALLRULES. NemesisAT (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You would vote keep on anything. You vote keep 95.5% of the time [91], often failing to link to any sources to justify such votes, and you're doing it again here. You argument is nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. The keep voters here have consistently failed to explain why this article meets guidelines for list notability. WP:IIAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you vote keep only 11% of the time. Neither statistic is relevant here. NemesisAT (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just checked and there are actually enough electrons in the universe now that we can keep an article that seems like a notable topic. WP:NOTPAPER. Maybe there isn't a cumulative list out there but surely individual stations with "No Exit"[92] have to have coverage. Essexman03 with his first page made the same foolish mistake that I did, which is to assume that putting an article into mainspace was an invitation to veteran editors to help improve it. But instead, the welcoming committee here AfD'd his first article after less than a fortnight. BBQboffin (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy - Interesting topic, but that alone isn't enough for an article. Fails WP:NLIST. I was on the fence, but the complete failure of any of the keep !votes to put forward viable policy-based arguments (except insofar as IAR can support any combination of words) is what convinced me. Not opposed to userfication if Essexman thinks there's sourcing out there and wants more time to bring it together. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think name change and expansion is appropriate as well and is probably better discussed on the talk page. But of research interest here goes:
Andrews, Kate. "The most remote railway stations in the world". Rail Europe.
Alexander, Colin; Siton, Alon (2018), The Stephenson Railway Legacy, Amberley Publishing Limited, ISBN 9781445676555, . The 1846 York & Newcastle Railway station at Richmond in North Yorkshire had no road access... Djflem (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support this as an alternative to deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 14:02, 1 February 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 01:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dalytra

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

I'm doubting the validity of this genus. No refs, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up article and cats and yahoo search and some archive.org. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The reason you are finding so few references is because most online sources erroneously place these species in the genus Alcmena, which is a permanently invalid junior homonym (see [93] for proof). For one glaring example, see [94]. Just because some online sources are erroneous does not oblige Wikipedia to propagate these errors. Dalytra does definitively exist - see the reference linked in the article itself, and also [95], [96] - and is the oldest available name for the permanently unavailable Alcmena. Dyanega (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyanega: are there three confusing taxon here? GBIF has:
fiveby(zero) 20:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, Alcmena Stål, 1859 (Homonym) in infobox i think explains it. fiveby(zero) 21:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alcmena Stål, 1859 should not be accepted by anyone; that is an error, since Koch's name is available and has seniority. The circumstances allowing a junior primary homonym to be adopted as valid do not apply here, if only because Art. 23.9.1.2 could not possibly be satisfied. Dyanega (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC) (I should note that both GBIF and BioLib are not trustworthy sources, as both are quite often wrong; GBIF especially so, and a distressingly large number of editors seem to give it entirely undeserved, uncritical acceptance). Dyanega (talk) 21:52, 24 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koyilandy Jumu'ah Mosque

Koyilandy Jumu'ah Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a weird mess, only referenced to a single source, and all I could find about the mosque when I did a WP:BEFORE was a bunch of links to other Wiki sites that were copies of this article. So from what I can tell the subject of the article fails the notability guidelines. Adamant1 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 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 Great Britain at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Alpine skiing. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone. Since there's a plausible redirect target and the name is a plausible search term, redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Hutcheon

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage, either in the article or identifiable through a search. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of notability and citation. This is a stub with only one source...that the human being exists. -Markeer 03:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The 1976 Olympics would have been covered in paper newspapers and magazines at the time, which are unlikely to be searchable online via google. I have no access to a public library at this time (and particularly not a british one) where I could do a proper search. Could someone check in my stead? Fieari (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply are you suggesting that because the 1976 Olympics itself is notable, then therefore this one participant is? Or are you suggesting that editors should research news coverage from the time to find out if this individual is notable in said coverage? Because if it's the latter...then this is a Delete until that research bears fruit, not a reason to keep this article in hope such research happens. -Markeer 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the latter. I would prefer not to delete potentially notable things without verifying that they lack notability. The only issue for me is that I currently physically lack access to the place where I could check if this person is notable or not. If a library search shows that no contemporary articles were written about her, then yes, of course delete, I am in no way suggesting inheritability of notability. If you pushed me for a !vote though... I don't think it's harmful to wait until it can be checked. I see no reason to prefer deletion over keeping in unknown situations. If we know someone to be non-notable, delete. If we know someone to be notable, keep. But if we don't know either way, as in this case... I'd rather commit error to keep than error to delete. Fieari (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fieari: If "we don't know either way", that means that we've been unable to establish notability. The article currently consists of a sparse 15 words ("Hazel Hutcheon ... is a British alpine skier. She competed in two events at the 1976 Winter Olympics."). If SIGCOV is later discovered, the article can be re-created and nothing of any real substance has been lost. Cbl62 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more coming from the perspective that overcoming systemic WP:BIAS is valuable for the encyclopedia. Articles that require offline sources... that is to say, smaller yet still notable events/people prior to the 90s... are systemically biased against on wikipedia, because it takes more work to correct. A stub can encourage research. Lack of a stub can fall into a memory hole to be forgotten forever. Fieari (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A red link can also encourage research, and I believe I read a study that suggested that it was more effective at doing so than a stub. Regardless, WP:MUSTBESOURCES applies, and any !vote solely on that basis should be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com does include some English newspapers, and all I find are passing mentions during the Olympics. See, e.g., here ("Hazel Hutcheon was eliminated in the first round ...") and here ("Hazel Hutcheon, 16 in August, is the youngest of a notably young group, and indeed the youngest on the team."). This does not rise to the level of depth required by WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's good enough for me. Removing bold from my tentative keep from before, changing to Delete. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source consists of two mentions of her in the captions of photos, and a mention that she held a Women's Ski title - it doesn't constitute significant coverage. The second also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, with the only reference to her being the line "Similarly Hazel Hutcheon of Dundee was the fastest British Girl." BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to List of British alpine skiers, or delete. Not finding any significant coverage; British Newspaper Archive reveals nothing more than what has been found by others already – all mentions of her are merely name-drops or passing mentions in routine sports reporting of the day. There is no valid ATD here since no suitable merge/redirect target (e.g. List of British alpine skiers) exists; she is only name-dropped in existing articles (which were obviously not the only events she ever competed in, and probably not what she's most known for – presumably that would be her British title) and significant information, in this case regarding her British combined title, cannot be added without it being undue – an appropriate list would resolve this. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That list now exists. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!vote amended. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough here to satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-medaling Olympians are not considered default notable and the sources we have in the article and that have been identified in this discussion are no where near meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. As fun as it was to go digging to find information on her, the resources available online do not support keeping this article. Seems a shame as I suspect there are hard copies of stories about her that we simply cannot access. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. National champion in her event. Sources look okay to me. Deb (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deb: Consensus has long established that GNG has to be met when the (often very weak) presumption of notability offered by NSPORTS is challenged. As such, please can you clarify exactly what significant coverage you are seeing in these sources that would meet GNG? Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Wjemather:Are you disputing that she was national champion? Deb (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Deb: No (btw, it was me who added that information to the article), I am disputing that there is significant coverage in the sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Wjemather: She fulfils the criteria for an assumption of notability as defined in Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Athletics/track_&_field_and_long-distance_running. Deb (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Deb: Aside from being a skier, not a track and field athlete... such a claim would be sufficient if you were disputing a speedy or proposed deletion but at AFD, any NSPORTS-based presumption (not assumption) of notability must be validated by demonstrating that significant coverage exists and GNG is met. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Wjemather: Sorry about those typos, but, regardless of the sport, your statement is incorrect. I'm not sure where your zeal for deleting national sporting champions comes from, but that's my position. The claim is sufficient because it is backed by reliable sources. There don't need to be hordes of articles and books. Deb (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • See WP:NSPORT/FAQ. Additionally, countless discussions at N, NSPORT and VP, and AFDs, indicate that your position is at odds with community consensus. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Deb Along with the FAQs, the first sentence of NSPORT situates it as a predictor of GNG, the Applicable policies and guidelines section reiterates the GNG requirement, and SPORTCRIT also requires SIGCOV in multiple RS. That NSPORT is subordinate to GNG was the intent of NSPORT from the start, and was reaffirmed in a large RfC in 2017 as well as in hundreds of AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As a national champion, she meets the notability criteria. Why would you want to delete an article about a person whose notability has been verified by reliable sources? Deb (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This is a fallacy. The RS we have only verify her achievements, which does not equate to verifying notability; significant coverage (of the subject) in secondary reliable sources is required to verify notability, but we don't appear to have any. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This is a fallacy. There is a presumption of notability for national champions and the fact that she is one is verifiable. Deb (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Actually, no, there is no presumption of notability for national champions in skiing. Cbl62 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 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 keep. ✗plicit 04:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory McDermott

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

As a non-medalling Olympian, he fails WP:NOLYMPICS, and also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in the article and none could be identified in a WP:BEFORE search. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Horse Magazine entry is not significant coverage, and while the Equestrian Life entry might be, it is only a single example when we require WP:THREE, and the fact that it focuses on McDermott's son, rather than McDermott, suggests that might not constitute significant coverage of McDermott. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is an essay. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is sufficient here to support GNG and allow some depth to be added to much more than a stub, including at least one detailed bio. Aoziwe (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a Google Search. Could you provide specific examples? BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It is a trimmed search to make it easy for people to find specifically relevant sources. There is this bio at third top (on my results), for example. There is sufficient in the results to provide some depth as to the subject's history and career over a number of decades. See WP:NEXIST Aoziwe (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a few short mentions in extremely niche publications is not enough to show notability. We decided that non-medaling Olympians are not notable. I am just not convinced that niche equstrian pulications are enough. Maybe the 2nd soruce, but the first source is also too short to count as passing the in depth coverage of GNG, so even if we accept niche equestrian publications as enough, we only have at best one GNG meeting source, and GNG requires multiple sources that are in depth and meet all its other prongs, so the one truly in-depth source is not enough to pass GNG so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since yesterday, the article has been expanded by the excellent work by Hack. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The expanded article now passes the GNG bar. The coverage from The Canbera Times and the two-part profile in The Horse Magazine have the kind of depth that is needed. And thanks to User:Hack for the improvements. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No outstanding issues. Deb (talk) 12:21, 27 January 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 03:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ardan International

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, only coverage available seems to be routine announcements of acquisitions and product launches. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are citations giving evidence that this corporation exists, but not that there has been any reason for significant coverage in secondary sources. -Markeer 03:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rationale at WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to RL360°: The article text and references describe the company's senior personnel and sale, topics which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing evidence of notability. Acquisition of this company is summarised at RL360°#Subsidiaries, so a redirect is an option. AllyD (talk) 16:46, 30 January 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 keep. ✗plicit 04:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Novak

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

Questionable notability per WP:NBIO/WP:GNG/WP:NBASKET with respect to depth of coverage and secondary sourcing. Poorly-sourced; strongest secondary sources supporting the subject may generally conflict with the principle of WP:AUD. Headphase (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I know there's no such thing as an auto-keep, but this nomination makes no sense. He's coaching at the Division I level and has a history of success on lower levels, and games played under an interim title count just as much as they would if he gets hired permanently. Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The league and team might be notable but notability is not inherited. Inclusion for athletes and coaches on Wikipedia is not merit based, rather it is based on them being covered significantly by indepth articles. The nomination questions his notability due to lack of coverage and as such makes sense since there doesn't seem to be alot of significant articles written on Novak. While Rikster2 has found three indepth sources, two of them are by the same author and all three are from a timespan of three weeks and brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability per WP:SUSTAINED. Alvaldi (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Alvaldi mentioned, notability is not inherited; the suitability of a subject earning a standalone article is not founded on that subject's future prospects. That is why existing coverage is important; until such a time as a subject's independent notability is clearly established by significant & targeted coverage, it may make more sense to merge the information into a larger article (in this case, the team's article). Headphase (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sigh 😒...then why did you nominate it for deletion?! If you think it works as a redirect, try to do so yourself and if it doesn't stick, then bring it to AfD. I'm getting real sick of these quixotic deletion nominations where deletion will not be the end result, the nom still takes it right to AfD, and redirects and PRODs aren't ever considered. And if he gets a permanent contract and/or wins the title, this nom is going to look silly and downright embarrassing in retrospect; I guarantee you if the subject was an interim FBS football coach in September or men's basketball coach in early December, you'd be TROUTed and speedy closed, because an interim college head coach is still a head coach. Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whether Novak gets a permanent contract or wins a championship in the future is irrelevant to this AfD. He either has the significant coverage to pass GNG today or he doesn't and thus is not notable enough to warrant an article. Alvaldi (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, round 2: 1 and 2. BTW, GNG only requires “multiple” significant sources. Rikster2 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - SEC women's head coach meets GNG and has sources. Not sure why this was even nominated. Jhn31 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the three articles that have been found, two are from the same author/newspaper and as such count as single source for the purposes of establishing notability. All three are from a timespan of three weeks, i.e. a brief bursts of news coverage related to his hiring. There is no inherited notability gained for coaching a certain team or in a certain league and !votes that state that the subject should be kept due to that contradict policy. NSPORTS specifically states that athletes and coaches have to pass WP:GNG with significant coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. I tried looking for other sources, including on newspapers.com, but did not find anything of substance. Two articles in a span of three weeks are not enough in my opinion. I'm willing to reconsider if more sources are found. Alvaldi (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you done any independent research yourself for sources? I dug those out in 5 minutes from a Google search. If you are going to repeatedly insert yourself into this debate then I think you also need to give looking for sources an honest go before proclaiming someone doesn’t meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rikster2: As I mentioned in my above comment, I did look for sources. To clarify, I tried a few Google searches with some variations (name + different schools etc.) and went through a few pages. I also did a search Newspapers.com where I also tried few variations and different time periods. The best I found were the same sources your search turned up. I am more than willing to change my !vote if others have better luck in finding significant sources from perhaps earlier in his career. Alvaldi (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a couple more references above. Including a lengthy interview from the Minneapolis Star when he was at Bethel. The GNG requirement isn't 30 sources it is "multiple sources." I have now cited 4 different (if you combine the 2 Clarion Ledger as one source). Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on the sources. GNG isn't a massive hurdle to overcome, three good sources are usually enough. He now has multiple significant sources from over at least 4 year period. I will change my !vote to Keep. I also added the sources to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All bar one of the previous Mississippi State Bulldogs women's basketball head coaches have pages for them (see template on page). Plus there seem to be a number of articles about him which are easily found on the internet. Perhaps worth adding additional information about win/loss whilst assistant at earlier places and more on what he did at Bethel. Gusfriend (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG as the subject of articles like this. NemesisAT (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG at this point. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep – I question the objectors' WP:BEFORE diligence. It took me less than 10 minutes to find a number of third party, significant, reliable sources, only to then see a couple editors above already linked them in support of keeping this article. SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lsw2472 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 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 keep. ✗plicit 04:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Christina Calayca

Disappearance of Christina Calayca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure what our current standards are, but there is almost no coverage since 2009, therefore possibly not of continuing encyclopedic interest. The article emphasizes details that would seem to be of relevance only in the immediate period, or to those actively engaged in the search for her. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominator's claim is false. There are in fact coverage from 2018, 2021, and 2022, which are already in the article. The article is supported by lots of WP:RS and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes the article is well sourced and the article is worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In defence of the article, ten of the sources are from after 2009 (five of them from 2021-2022) and there are three more from active online databases managed by provincial and national Canadian police forces as well as one of their affiliates, suggesting a persistent interest in the case. While media attention has tapered off since 2009, contemporary sources note that media attention in the first two years of the investigation was significant and far-reaching across Canada's largest province, and more recent sources evidence there is persistent public interest in the case. That the initial search is tied with a 2005 search for the longest ever performed by Canada's largest provincial police force is also evidence of its notability. I believe the details included are useful for putting the investigation and theories into context, though a few were included because they are part of the narrative surrounding the case or because they are unusual. I agree that extraneous details should be pared down where they appear, but I do not believe any of them would be considered interesting to only those involved in the investigation. DinoBenn (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can tell some of the references in the article have retrieval dates of 2018, 2021, and 2022, but were still written around the time of the person's original disappearance. Except with the caveat of a podcast from a year ago and maybe a blog post if I'm getting the dates correct (and I assume I am), but neither of these is usable for notability. So what the first voter said about this having continued coverage is wrong. At least in any way that matters. Otherwise, I'll change my vote if they can point out which references are from the last couple of years outside of the two I've mentioned. In the meantime references from the Canadian police and their affiliates don't work for notability even if they are current, anymore then a podcast or blog post does. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The recent sources I referred to are episodes of the podcasts The True Crime Files and Cold Case Detective from 2021, which are reasonably popular and mostly included due to the speculation present on their programs; an article from the popular missing persons blog Stories of the Unsolved from January 2022; an episode of the The Next Call podcast, which was published by Canada's national news broadcaster in 2021 and hosted by a prolific CBC crime reporter; and an article from the Elliot Lake Today news service from September 2021. The latter two were both published by reputable news sources and the former three, being independent media, indicate continued public interest in the case 14 years on. DinoBenn (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you said there refutes what I said. In the meantime the fact that you say the podcasts are based on speculation just furthers my point that they don't work for notability since podcasts about cold cases are usually 99% based on unsubstantiated speculations and are therefore unreliable sources. It might as well be a reference to the National Enquirer at that point. The one that was published by Canada's national news broadcaster is no different, it's still based completely on conjecture. "On the CBC true crime podcast The Next Call, host David Ridgen speculated that Denis Léveillé, a suspect in the unsolved 1996 disappearance of Melanie Ethier with a history of sexually abusing teenage girls, may have been responsible for other missing person cases in Ontario." Does a podcast host speculating that some rando "may have" been responsible for the disappearance sound like a reliable source for a biographical article to you? Because to me it doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that those sources are worthy of inclusion because they are "based on" speculation, but that they offer speculation. It would do a disservice to the article not to include speculation from independent media, as these sources address angles which investigators have not brought up because they are potentially embarrassing to police (ex. the starlight tours connection) or baseless (ex. the arranged marriage rumour), and a reader who does their own research on the topic may be misled by online message board threads into thinking said theories have more or less value than they warrant. As to the point about unreliable sources, the article does not derive details about the disappearance from these podcasts except for corroboration purposes. I will also note again that with regards to The Next Call, David Ridgen is an award-winning crime journalist so his conjecture is noteworthy, though I will admit that the context surrounding why Léveillé is more than just "some rando" has been omitted for the sake of brevity. The notion that these sources are "usually 99% based on unsubstantiated speculations" is itself unsubstantiated, and Wikipedia policy does not state that independent podcasts should not be used as sources. As for whether my reply addresses your original concerns, I will point out that your original case in favour of deletion mentions that the more recent sources I mentioned were actually contemporary sources, while my reply demonstrated they are in fact from 2021-2022. I understand your skepticism about the validity of sources you have not had a chance to vet personally, but please respect that I am engaging with your criticism and not resorting to bad faith tactics to undermine it. DinoBenn (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing sources that can be included in an article to cite something with ones that can be used for showing notability in an AfD discussion. They are different things. There's a higher bar when it comes to using a source to show notability then there is for citing a piece of information in an article. Especially with BLP articles and the source is making un-substantiated legal accusations about people. Also, notability isn't inherited. Just because David Ridgen is a notable crime journalist doesn't mean everything he writes about also automatically becomes notable just because he did a piece on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confused. The original criticism was that there was only one or two recent sources on the subject, when in fact there are five from just this past year. Your criticism was that those five were not from the past year, and I pointed out that they were. Your reply was that they are not reliable sources for details on the case, to which I argued that they corroborate details offered by more credible sources and their value is in evidencing continued public interest in the case and the forms that takes. With regards to your latest points: Ridgen's speculation is not notable because an accredited journalist suggested it, but because an accredited journalist suggested a likely suspect behind an unsolved disappearance in a remote Northern Ontario community, which said journalist had done extensive research on, might be responsible for an unsolved disappearance in another remote Northern Ontario community given the prolific amount of girls and young women Léveillé assaulted and was convicted of assaulting in life. If anything, this is an indication that more details from the podcast should be included in the article for context, and that my failure was in believing it was sufficient to link to an article where the suspect is discussed in greater depth. As to the other sources, your personal stance on whether they warrant discussion in this forum is noted, but given that the original criticism is that the case is no longer being discussed the fact that multiple sources have commented on the case independent of one another in recent years suggests otherwise. DinoBenn (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never disputing that multiple sources have commented on the case in recent years. Nor did I say the case was no longer being discussed. I literally said it was recently talked about in a blog post and podcast. But what sources exist from the last couple of years that aren't blogs, speculative podcasts, or the police? Btw, it also can't be the interviews done with her family members. I want something recent that isn't primary and (or) mostly full of unsubstantiated speculation and save the long, mostly off topic diatribes this time. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not spend any more time correcting the record. The Elliot Lake Today article, which I am linking here for your convenience, matches all the qualifications you have outlined. DinoBenn (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reference from a guy who's recent work includes a story about an encounter he had with ghosts. Real reliable source there lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you are arguing in bad faith at this point, but for the sake of anyone reading this thread it should be noted that the linked news article relays factual information about the search & rescue process and how it relates to Calayca's case, including segments of interviews with SAR professionals familiar with the case. Supernatural phenomena do not come up in the article, so whether or not the author of the article believes in ghosts is about as relevant as whether or not they believe in God, Bigfoot, or the Moon. DinoBenn (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How am I arguing in bad faith? I asked you for a reliable source from the last couple of years and you gave me an interview by a guy that writes articles about their experiences with ghosts. Which clearly isn't what I asked for. So your the one being bad faithed here. Either that or you don't know the guidelines and what a reliable source is. The fact that your acting like my issue has to do with the author's beliefs, instead of what they are writing about, makes me inclined to think your acting in bad faith though. Your mischaracterization of what I said about there being recent sources doesn't really make me think your being good faithed either. I could really care less if the author believes in god, but if they are going to write about their near death experience of heaven or whatever as if it actually happened then there's zero reason to assume they care about journalistic accuracy or fact checking. Let alone does the news outlet care about either of those things when its printing their ghost stories. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about ghosts, so the author's opinion on the existence of ghosts has no bearing on the reliability of the article. The publication is owned by Village Media, a well-known media company, and publishes on a number of topics including editorial pieces like the one you are referring to. Almost all news publications do this, including CBC and CTV, often on much more controversial topics. The Elliot Lake Today and its staff are not unreliable because you do not like one piece by a journalist. As for the subject of bad faith arguments, I have a hard time believing that a person could be arguing in good faith when they reply with "lol" to an article about a missing young woman, or when they have put so little thought into their reply that they have not bothered to check that their argument does not contain four misspellings of a common word like "you're". This is my fifth article about a missing person and the first that has been nominated for deletion (on the grounds of notability, not the quality of its citations) so I will not argue with your point that I am ignorant about how the process works since it is a clearly unsubstantiated ad hominem, the latest of many. DinoBenn (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to waste my time addressing the petty off-topic and relevant points you've made, like you taking issue with grammatical errors, but WP:REPUTABLE says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Except I will say it's laughable that you attacked me for miss-spelling a word in the same message your complaining about ad-hominem attacks. What's more hilarious though is that you asked me in a prior message to respect that your engaging with my criticism and then subsequently made various disrespectful claims about me. Including that I'm in acting bad faith and making may ad-hominem attacks against you. I get that you want the article to be kept because you care about the topic, but arguing in an extremely defensive and petty manor with people who vote delete isn't likely to result in the outcome your looking for. I'm not going to argue with you about it beyond that. Other people can review the references and make their own determinations. Ultimately my "vote" has extremely little weight in the outcome of this. So it's not worth arguing over. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is within guidelines by plenty of WP:RS and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The article has plenty of third party sources which is excellent. Article is well written. BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of this article is backed up by mulitiple, verifiable reliable sources. According to WP:NTEMP once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. It met WP:GNG years ago, and still does. Netherzone (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many sources used, but they aren't likely to be recent as the nom suggests, as this is basically a cold case at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Again, it is well-sourced. Severestorm28 22:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not temporary, so the fact that there are few to no recent sources doesn't matter: there's no rule that a topic is automatically non-notable just because it isn't still getting as much new coverage in 2022 as it did 15 years ago. And while there are a few sources in the article that aren't suitable or appropriate ("Ottawa Valley Search and Rescue Dog Association"?), there are more than enough that are. In principle, I'm not a fan of the "Wikipedia needs to have a 'disappearance of X' article about every person who's ever been reported missing" approach to article creation, but until there's a clear consensus against them we have to follow the quality and depth and range of the sourcing, and the quality and depth and range of these sources is mostly fine. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is sustained significant coverage from reliable sources that proves notability. -- Mike 🗩 20:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:53, 30 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_24&oldid=1067693656"