Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp El Tesoro}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basque trinquete}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basque trinquete}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bingo Stadium}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bingo Stadium}}

Revision as of 06:37, 17 April 2024

< April 16 April 18 >

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp El Tesoro

Camp El Tesoro (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 camp seems to have received no significant coverage over its long history. A google brings up nothing but a couple of blogs and a press release, and a search of the newspapers.com archive only brings up advertisements in local newspapers, nothing that would contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems notable in particular for their program for bereaved children. See e.g. [1][2], [3], [4], ProQuest 390323292, ProQuest 235247096. One of the camp counselors received the President's Volunteer Service Award: [5]. Jfire (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added sources. This is a very well-known children's camp in Texas. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ without prejudice to renomination or a merge discussion per WP:NOQUORUM. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque trinquete

Basque trinquete (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 refs on the page for many years. There are a number of unref claims on the page which could be removed per WP:V but I'm also unclear whether this is a duplicate page with content from another or something else altogether. There are WP pages in other languages but they don't have many refs and do not clear up the confusion. It feels like it could perhaps be merged with Basque pelota but I'm confused so this might not be appropriate for reasons I do not fully understand JMWt (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this page is deleted, something will also have to be done with the Trinquete disambiguation page, which has only this entry and Valencian trinquet. Valencian trinquet also does not cite any sources, so could potentially fail notability as well. Bandit Heeler (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to a new chapter in Basque pelota. Sources exist on the web, so the article could probably be kept, but I agree that this would make more sense as a chapter in the parent article, which already has sections on the equipment used in the sport, so why not also on the court. You may like to note that notability does not rest on whatever citations have or have not been put in an article, but on what exists in the world outside. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Enough RS to satisfy GNG. For instance [6], [7]. This last is a doctoral thesis entirely about the Basque ball game which includes extensive discussion of the trinquete, including comparisons and contrasts with the fronton.Central and Adams (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo Stadium

Bingo Stadium (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 refs on the page for many years. Colleagues at Wikiproject Japan tell me that the page on ja.wiki only has primary sources. There may be sources in Japanese but I'm not seeing anything much to add. JMWt (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Japan. JMWt (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could possibly be WP:REDIRECTed to 1992 AFC Asian Cup#Stadiums or Onomichi#Parks and gardens per WP:CHEAP as an alternative to deletion, but otherwise I'm not seeing how this meets WP:NBUILDING. A Google search of the 広島県立びんご運動公園陸上競技場 really doesn't come up with anything that looks like WP:SIGCOV, and pretty much all of the content in the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article is unsourced or WP:NOTEVERYTHING kind of content. The only content in the Japanese Wikipedia article that might be worth adding is the stuff about the stadium's naming rights being purchased in 2022. I also found something online about stadium undergoing a renewal in 2022, but that's about it. In addition to the Japanese Wikipedia article, there are six other non-English Wikipedia articles the stadium, but these all are stubs and appear to just be translations of the Japanese Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: why are there no interlanguage links on this page, I wonder? I found the WP:ja article here (sorry, someone please convert to proper 'ja' link); where are the other language articles? I have no knowledge of sport [stop there, really] stadia and the like, but searching in Japanese only finds me primary sources. The name Bingo is geographical: this is the name of the old kuni or province of this area. The naming rights bit is about something called Dasshu Kozakana-kun, (lit. "Dash", as in running, "little fish"), which sounds like a "cute" character name, but I cannot find anyreference to this name not associated with the stadium. So there really is very very little here. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sport of athletics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on my expansion (added "History" section) and the above sources. The stadium has been a venue for several large international competitions in the 90s, so I think there are avenues for expansion by looking into newspapers from that time period. In addition there are several Japanese-language sources on the web to examine. --Habst (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Habst's expansion, AGFing the Japanese sources that coverage is sufficient. GiantSnowman 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I appreciate the new sourcing and section, but the coverage and seeming notability here is quite weak, especially for a stadium that doesn't appear to get regular use and whose last official/notable use was 32 years ago. Anwegmann (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Mariette

Bernard Mariette (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)

Only 2 articles link to this. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Sources confirm he's been a CEO but lacking WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a simple Proquest search for ""Bernard Mariette" yields a lot of international results over the last two decades. Was there a WP:BEFORE? Nfitz (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But how many of these are WP:SIGCOV? I see a number of routine company announcements. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there's some like that - perhaps even a majority! But look deeper. Where did you search during the BEFORE? What's wrong with the references C&A highlights below? Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give actual examples of sources that are indepth and satisfy WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Plenty of significant coverage found in Newsbank also. Many of the hits are low quality PR, but there are more than enough that aren't. E.g. "Quiksilver Retrenches Its Top Leadership February 12, 2008 LA Times," "Downhill Run March 19. 2010 The Deal," and "Trouble in the tube April 3, 2010 The Age". The LA Times piece is already used in the article, but the others aren't. Therefore meets GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with above editors. Enough news coverage exists to keep this one. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Book of Mormon places. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jershon

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

Wp:gng. This is an in universe location with little attention inside LDS circles, and none in independent reliable sources - especially no indepth coverage we could use to build an article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. A consensus to delete is not going to emerge here. Per IP 82's comment re: Category:Lists of busiest airports, should consensus there change there is no issue with revisiting this in that light. Star Mississippi 02:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in Iran

List of the busiest airports in Iran (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 list article goes against WP:NOTSTATS as it's just a compilation of Iranian airport statistics over the arbitrary period of 2011 to 2019. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Iran. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that about all pages in Category:Lists of busiest airports have this structure. Maybe a broader discussion is needed to determine if all these articles should be deleted or kept? 82.174.61.58 (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTSTATS require context, which this article somewhat lacks but can be easily provided, and these are statistics which would have been provided in an almanac 30 years ago even if not necessarily for Iran. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What sort of context would overcome the NOTSTATS violation? Sunnya343 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sportingflyer. Orientls (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say that enplanements could be added to List of airports in Iran like List of airports in Washington (state), but I see no reason for this list to be singled out among the many in the category. These are perfectly valid statistics to compile, and while the article could be improved with prose context, I don't see the issues of "reduce readability", "may be confusing", or "so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" that are the basis of NOTSTATS. Here, we see "the statistics can be split into a separate article" in practice, and List of airports in Iran or even Transport_in_Iran#Airports_and_airlines could include recommended summarization. While some pages that are primarily statistics may focus on too narrow a topic for encyclopedic significance or at least a stand-alone article, this is generally considered relevant and sources like [8][9][10][11] show some media interest. Reywas92Talk 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those are WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources that basically repeat the raw data from the Iranian Airports Company, so WP:SIGCOV is not met. The MEED source does provide some analysis, but it's only discussing the statistics from April 2016 to January 2017. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is not about Iranian Airports Company, so we don't have to have sources independent of the Iranian Airports Company. There's nothing wrong with using primary news sources, they just have to be used with appropriate care to avoid bias or original research. Reywas92Talk 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that primary sources are fine for basic facts like the individual statistics, but per SIGCOV we need independent secondary sources to demonstrate that this topic is notable, i.e. that it deserves its own article. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rameumptom

Rameumptom (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)

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng - this is a definition of a term used in the book of mormon. There are no apparent independent reliable sources that cover tge topic in depth. This seems like an unlikely search term for the book of mormon, so I don't believe a redirect would be appropriate Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, which guides that there are times when it's better to cover a topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. For readers, Rameumptom would be more usefully described in the wider contexts of the plot/setting/theology of the Book of Mormon; there is not an amount of coverage that would justify a separate article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Hydrangeans' comments. Trevdna (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. The nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints)

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) (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)

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng, this is a definition of an in universe phrase using only in universe sources. No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination in Mormon culture Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The statement that No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination is not quite accurate. Looking through Google Scholar reveals the following:
    • Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's 'Anti-Masonick Bible'", John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 9 (1989): 17–30), with discussion of how it was a euphemism for Freemasonry.
    • Seth R. Payne, "Satan's Plan: The Book of Mormon, Glenn Beck and Modern Conspiracy", paper presented at a 2014 meeting of the American Academy of Religion held in Calgary, Canada and released on SSRN: mentions how the phrase was an anti-Masonic euphemism in the nineteenth century and became a term popular among Latter-day Saint conspiracy theorists in the twenty-first century.
    • Patrick Q. Mason, "Ezra Taft Benson and Modern (Book of) Mormon Conservatism", in Out of Obscurity: Mormonism Since 1845, eds. Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner (Oxford University Press, 2016), 63–80, about how LDS Church president and Dwight D. Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson used the phrase "secret combination" and applied it to his right-wing understanding of U. S. politics.
    • Robert A. Goldberg, "From New Deal to New Right", in Thunder from the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics, ed. Matthew L. Harris (University of Illinois Press, 2019), 68–96, also about Benson's use of the term "secret combination" in his politics.
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, we could reduce the entire article to "'secret combination' is an LDS-specific shibboleth that means 'alliance of evildoers'". As the sources cited above make clear, the term is not generally used or meaningful to anyone outside the LDS movement. But even within the movement it means different things at different times (e.g. the distinctive and personal interpretation by Ezra Taft Benson described in the Mason source above vs. the anti-Freemasonry version described in the Vogel source above). I can see how from an LDS perspective they could be collected based on their common origin into one article, but as a reader and contributor to a general encyclopedia I think that a standalone article probably doesn't help our readers as much as directing them to more useful, contextual information about the few disparate instances where the term's invocation (not just origin) is worth discussing.
    So, is there any interest in replacing this unbalanced article with two or three entries in the parent secret combination DAB pointing interested readers to those existing articles, something like "a term for groups of evildoers in the Book of Ether", "a term historically used to distinguish between Mormonism and Freemasonry", "a term used by politician Ezra Taft Benson to describe political conspiracies", that sort of thing? Those articles should already be talking about "secret combinations", and if they aren't, well, that's interesting too, but it could be rectified in those articles using some of the sources provided above, I would think. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- First, the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG. Second, there are very many other sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its a borderline case but I think on review we are slightly over the GNG line here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete‎. Deleted due to WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ucodelite

Ucodelite (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 NSOFT (more broadly, GNG) and has some NOTAD plus not NPOV language. BEFORE search turns up no possible reliable sources to indicate notability (or any sources at all, too). Creator copy-pasted draft out of draftspace after a declined AfC. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 04:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me about the discussion regarding the article on Ucodelite. I kindly request that the article not be deleted as it holds significance within the coding community and provides valuable information about an innovative software development tool. I am open to contributing to the discussion and making any necessary improvements to address concerns raised. However, I believe that Ucodelite merits inclusion on Wikipedia based on its relevance and impact in the field of software development. Thank you for considering my input. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it holds significance within the coding community, you will need to verifiably show that by including reliable sources that indicate the subject's notability. Sources from the subject's own website are not reliable and thus do not count towards notability. For example, see Codeacademy. It has numerous reliable sources (almost 40). You don't necessarily need to have 40 (avoid OVERCITE), but you should have enough that indicate notability.
I should also note that your original draft at Draft:Ucodelite was declined. Why did you recreate it in mainspace? WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 05:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any misunderstanding. I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of Ucodelite within the coding community. I will ensure to include verifiable sources from reputable sources that indicate its significance. Regarding the draft decline, I acknowledge that it was declined initially, but I believed that subsequent improvements warranted its inclusion in mainspace. I will take this feedback into consideration moving forward. Thank you for your guidance. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of UCoDeLite within the coding community. I will ensure that credible references are included to support its notability. Regarding the original draft at Draft:Ucodelite, I apologize for any oversight in recreating it in mainspace after its decline. I am committed to following Wikipedia's guidelines and will work to address any concerns raised. However, I kindly request the removal of the nomination for deletion to allow for further improvements and contributions to the article." Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm committed to providing verifiable information to support Ucodelite significance within the coding community. We are actively editing the article to include additional sources and improve its quality to attract more views. Regarding the original draft being declined, I appreciate your feedback and have since made revisions based on the guidelines. I believe Ucodelite merits inclusion on Wikipedia due to its impact and relevance in the software development field. Your consideration in removing the deletion nomination is greatly appreciated." Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider removing the nomination for deletion, as contributors are actively editing the article and it is gained more views. In terms of demonstrating the significance of Ucodelite within the coding community, I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to establish its notability. I will work on including such sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Regarding the original draft being declined, I appreciate the feedback and will take it into account as I continue to improve the article. Thank you for your consideration. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I have also contributed because it seems that it's relevant, And I am keeping my research along Ucodelite and still improving, So I requesting to remove from "Nomination this article for deletion'
Thank You Harvardjustine80 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: While this discussion was going on, the article was deleted, judged by an administrator to be blatant advertising. Anyone wishing to restore the article as a draft so that it can be corrected and resubmitted should go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Insight

Source Insight (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 has been unsourced and has notability issues for over a decade. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG ZimZalaBim talk 03:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No significant coverage from secondary sources. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exotel

Exotel (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)

Under notability I think this qualifies for deletion. There is not significant coverage of this company. Moritoriko (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company meets the notability criteria and the article can be expanded with these sources. 49.37.249.147 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to get into one by one source and why its not establishing the notability, I can do it. But for now MC is feature and features are paid pieces on MC its declared on their content policy. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Can you link to the content policy that you are talking about? Also care to elaborate your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5ire where you curiously voted keep? 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll do it. Anon IP added some references above but, other than a bald "meets the notability criteria" Ta-Da! assertion, hasn't gone into any detail as to why those references or any other references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. Here's the analysis on the sources above:
  • This from Moneycontrol is a profile that relies entirely on information provided by the company and a phonecall with the founder. There is insufficient in-depth "Original Content" and it fails our criteria. In reality, this article fits into the category "puff profile" beloved of many tech columnists.
  • This from Business Line suffer from precisely the same shortcomings. It is also a "puff profile" that relies entirely on information provided by the company and an interview with the Founder CEO and also fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This from Fortune India is another example of a puff profile that relies entirely on regurgitating information provided by the company and their CEO/investor. Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This next one from Business Line is an early puff profile from 2013. Same failings as the others. No Independent Content, no independent in-depth analysis/commentary/investigation/etc of the company, etc. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
  • This also from 2013 from Times of India is YAPP (Yet Another Puff Profile) from the company was a start-up and the article simply regurgitates the company's own messaging from that time. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
  • This from The Economic Times is "part of a series of interviews" - fails ORGIND
  • This next from Moneycontrol is the earliest yet from 2012, and is another puff profile relying on info from the company/CEO with no content that meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • Finally from Inc42 in 2016 comes YAPP which is entirely based on an interview and fails for the same reason.
No doubt these references were originally removed from the article because they're Company Marketing. This is what companies do, they help papers fill their editions by making themselves available for being interviewed as "The Next Big Thing", everyone loves a success story, etc, but these types of articles are precisely the types that fail our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 11:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only trying to rescue the article from deletion, so please spare me the snide remarks.
The references were originally removed by 103.10.119.68 (with promotional edits like this) and User:RN.IN (who is known for adding copyrighted material and writing purely promotional articles). There is no indication that these references were removed because "they're Company Marketing".
According to you, every single source on the page is a "puff profile". Can you please share a few examples of media articles that do satisfy ORGIND and CORPDEPTH but do not fall under your definition of "puff profile"? Preferably for privately-held startups of comparable size. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I have linked all have bylines and are attributed to staff who are unaffiliated with the subject. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't get past the paywall on The Ken
  • A 230 page book that mentions the company and founder several times could be good but again I can't access it
  • The Entrackr article is trivial as per NCORP, just profits and losses.
  • I don't think the TechCircle article establishes anything notable about the company either.
If there is some way that I could read the book I would be more than happy to add to the article. Moritoriko (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for being unable to access the first two sources, see WP:PAYWALL/WP:SOURCEACCESS. I have access to the book and it contains a full chapter on Exotel, I can provide the text if you need it. I don't have access to the Ken article but it is a "16 min read", so I expect it to be an in-depth dissection of the company like all other Ken articles of that length. Combining the book source, this Ken article, the 2022 Moneycontrol story and the 2016 Fortune India feature, I believe there is sufficient significant coverage and independent analysis. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not discounting the source because of the paywall, I was merely stating the reason why I didn't give any other opinion on it. Highking has already noted why the Moneycontrol and Fortune India stories are both insufficient. You asked under HighKing's comment about what an appropriate article would look like and I did some searching all the start ups of comparable size that I found didn't have wikipedia pages.
That being said I know I am more deletionist so I'll let everyone else decide what to do. Moritoriko (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant that all startups of comparable size don't have a Wikipedia page. I asked for examples of media coverage of those companies that do satisfy ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Whatfix, for instance, is a startup of comparable size which has also been covered in a chapter in that book I've cited. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Several sources added to the page appear to contain promotional content. Some of these sources were previously removed due to concerns about their promotional nature. However, they have now been restored by User:49.37.249.147 in an effort to safeguard the article from potential deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RN.IN (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Antoni

AfDs for this article:
Dmitri Antoni (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:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina

AfDs for this article:
Ekaterina Zaikina (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)

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed that it fails WP:NSKATE. Further, de minimis test of notability appears to be their participation in World Juniors, which doesn't seem to have any RS coverage. - Cara Wellington (talk)
Cara Wellington (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with reduplicated names

AfDs for this article:
List of people with reduplicated names (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 the best ever example of a list with an arbitrary characteristic. What next? List of people with double letters? List of people with names that conmtain three letters e?, List of people with second name Bob? The privious nom was closed because they said no rules forbade such lists. Well, I don't know what was 14 years ago, but now there are: Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policiesverifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability. Basically, the above boils down to the fact that no reliable source discusses such lists - Altenmann >talk 15:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't read the "Couplings" source but this is not a distinguishing or unifying characteristic of these people, and notability is not established for why reduplication in names is significant or why they should be listed together. It seems indiscriminate to me that it combines names that are reduplicated within a single name (e.g. the Chinese given name Bingbing or Congolese surname Lualua), as matching surnames and given names (Abraham Abraham), as multiple surnames (Rodriguez Rodriguez; I imagine this can't be that uncommon with Spanish naming conventions!), and as made-up nicknames and fictional characters! Perhaps limiting it to just Same personal name and family name would be better and less indiscriminate but this would really need to show some level of significance with sources so it doesn't just feel like unexplained trivia. Reywas92Talk 17:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not at all uncommon with Spanish names: there must be thousands and thousands of people called Rodríguez Rodríguez. In the days of printed telephone books it was easy to check if you were in a Spanish-speaking country (as I did, years ago). I wouldn't be all that surprised to meet a Rodrigo Rodríguez Rodríguez. In any case the list is trivial: Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list has a very trivial feel. It also includes names that are kind of the same. The best way to handle this would probably be to cover reduplication within each language on its own. It may well warrant a place in the Wikipedia name space, cf. Wikipedia:Unusual place names. PS. See also List of tautological place names, which is similarly unsourced and fairly trivial. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Article is more trivia than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The arguments made for deletion are fair and persuasive, yet, perhaps this merits further consideration. The article has been around for quite a while and a lot of time has been spent compiling this (admittedly haphazard) list. As messy as it is, there is some actual (and amusing) information here, and it's not evident that one would find it in one place anywhere else. Is this something that we want to preserve in some distilled format or someplace else in this encyclopaedia (per Geschichte above)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cl3phact0: What if I were to userfy it? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't respond in time you can respond on my talk page. I have the page saved to a Google Doc. I do personally think that this page should be deleted in its current form, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. There is consensus that the article is based on a topic that has been discussed in reliable sources, and is thus not synth. There is also consensus that although the article may need cleanup (and a move to a new title might be appropriate), it is reliably sourced. The proposal to merge did not gain consensus, but this close is without prejudice to proposing a merge in the normal course. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent

AfDs for this article:
Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent (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)

Original research not suitable for an encyclopedia. A mathematical treatise with only a couple of references to basic facts the rest are heavily mathematized proofs and reasonings. Some people in the previous discussion argue that counterexamples are OK. Referenced counter-examples are OK. References demonstrate both correctness and notability of the content. The reader does not have to trust a wikipedian that the nontrivial math is correct. - Altenmann >talk 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not unsourced (though one body section is), and its contents are obviously not original research (except perhaps for that one section). --JBL (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didnt say it is unsourced. I said only a couple of references. And its content is obviously a wall of heavy original mathematical research. "Cranking through the math one finds that..." - sure thing, professor. Hold my beer. - Altenmann >talk 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Checking the references already in the article shows that it is not a wall of heavy original mathematical research. The only part that wasn't already backed up by sources explicitly discussing the specific examples given was the "Examples with support almost everywhere in " subsection. The "Cranking through the math" part was a tone problem, not a content problem, and that was easily fixed.
      Right now, the page is in deletion is not cleanup territory, I think. It might need further trimming and revising for proper encyclopedic tone, but the basic complaint of the nomination is unfounded. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid deletion rationale is offered. The article is adequately sourced, and obviously not OR. AFD is not for cleanup of minor tone problems. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SYNTH - does it ring the bell? - Altenmann >talk 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If I were you I would be more worried about WP:CIR. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Synthesis means drawing new conclusions from things that sources have said. This article takes a conclusion that sources have already said and illustrates it with examples that sources have already used. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I see XOR'easter tries to salvage the article by throwing in references to some math. Well, it will probably not help. No matter how many footnotes you add, the article will still be original research, only from unreferenced OR it will turn into WP:SYNTH-type OR. (Of course, there is no doubt one can find a ref to each and every "2+2=4".) For this article, you have to provide references to sources that discuss these or similar examples. We have quite a few discussions in WP to what extent math in articles is OR (especially in the issues related to statistics; somehow many people think that population counting is a trivial math). And all discussions inevitably boil down to allowing only 2+2=4 or such. And funny thing, heated battles were around basic logic: "A or B" vs. "A and B" -- who would have believe it? "He didnt drink or smoke" - true or false? - Altenmann >talk 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2: Heck, in this way I can print my 2-pages-long proof of the Fermat's Last Theorem, with every line footnoted, but still wrong. - Altenmann >talk 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. One horse is of one coat color <ref| Base of mathematical induction /ref>
    2. Suppose k horses of one color <ref| Induction hypothesis /ref>
    3. Let us prove that then k+1 horses are of one color <ref| Induction step /ref>
    4. ... and so on. With each sentence footnoted, and you proved that all horses are the same color.- Altenmann >talk 21:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, the rationale advanced in the deletion nomination was factually inaccurate to begin with. The sources already in the article at the time were enough to demonstrate that the examples weren't made up out of whole cloth and that the topic is a topic math people care about. Further searching only bolsters this conclusion. One could still have legitimate concerns: is the article title clear and informative? Would this work better as a section in another article? Is the tone still too textbook-like rather than encyclopedic? Such concerns, though worth discussing, are not a matter for AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to Independence (probability theory), I would suggest. The article very much positions itself as WP:SYNTH; starting off with This article demonstrates that [...] is something of a heavy giveaway. The premise here is "I will make an argument", not "I will document a topic". This can be carried within an existing article because we have more leeway there to shape the structure of how information is presented, but it is quite unsuitable for a separate article. Make it a subsection under (or after) Independence (probability theory)#Examples, and it should be okay. Sentences like "it is sometimes mistakenly thought that" still require sourcing/attribution. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The contents of this article would be totally undue at Independence (probability theory), making it an inappropriate merge target. --JBL (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It might make more sense to turn this article into a section in a new article called something like Misconceptions about the normal distribution. The three different Counterexamples books, the Melnick and Tenenbein paper, etc., provide other topics that would fit under that heading. XOR'easter (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I would support that. It would certainly be a better title than the current one IMO. I guess that would count as a keep and edit from me thne. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor phrasing does not WP:SYNTH make. It's not WP:SYNTH when the references (a) point out that students actually have this misconception and (b) provide examples illustrating why it is wrong. There is no conclusion here being advanced beyond what the literature already says. XOR'easter (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see very different, opposing views of this article. Let's see if one relisting can bring a clearer consensus or another possible Merge target emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, although it needs work and possibly a re-naming. It's not so bad to rate WP:TNT, and not WP:OR because it has been cited at least twice. I have taken and passed four statistics classes from the 100 level to graduate school, and I have taught very basic probability as part of AP Biology, but I am not an expert, so I defer to other where this should go. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient. While I'd advocate for those who found sourcing to start over to build an article based in sourcing, I'm willing to provide the text as a draft if experienced editors think they can make something viable from this. Star Mississippi 02:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Carnivale

David Carnivale (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 PROD on this expired in 2009; it should have been deleted a long time ago. The article is a weird puff piece, likely by a COI editor, and is really just promotional. I find nothing on the internet that suggests this person is notable. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I believe Drmies nailed it as "weird puff piece". Well ... it's different, but neither notable nor adequately sourced. There are only three inline sources for this individual, but you can't open the sources to verify what they are. Under "References", the majority of the Staten Island Advance listings are ... well ... not really sources. There's an online site for Statin Island, but not a news source, as much as it is select dates from about 30 years of the site. None of which seems to be relevant to this article. — Maile (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Architecture, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Architect Dave Carnivale wishing to comment on my page (which I've been proud to have for 15 years) having been nominated for possible deletion.Listing why I should remain sounds immodest and it is awkward, but there are several reasons.
Having been the first architect in the world to have a website (affordablehouse.com) which made its debut March 15, 1996 - the world's first architectural website it should be noted - featuring what at the time was the second book to be printed cover-to-cover on the internet (the site was simplified and revised around 2022 after having been "on the air" so-to-speak for a quarter century - so it is no longer quite "cover-to-cover") is alone enough to warrant my page. Remember, in 1996 only 25k-30k websites were functioning at all; another 75k simply said "Under Construction."
Secondly, another item is that, acting pro se I fought N.Y.S. all the way to the Supreme Court against special interest legislation affecting N.Y.S. architects and for the most part I succeeded.
Third, in an 8 year federal case, acting pro se, which went twice to the Delaware District Court ('Carnivale v. Staub' Civ.No.08-764-SLR), the U.S. Federal Circuit (Appeal from the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office,Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 92047553 'Staub v. Carnivale) and twice to the Third Circuit (Civil Action 1:08-cv-00764-SLR) - all of which I won - I brought trademark law, specifically the 1946 Lanham Act regarding trademark protections, into the computer age. The case is now cited throughout the country and established that tiny alterations in domain names are insufficient to protect against claims of trademark infringement. The Delaware District Court accepted evidence as having proven that, via my website, as of the 2007 date of the trial, 2,301,503 people had read all or part of my book (and it must be noted that the "unique viewers" the webhost reported counted everyone using a particular browser, such as Google or Yahoo etc., on any given day as being one "unique viewer" - meaning that 2.3 million figure was many times that in terms of individual people). That Delaware District case "Carnivale v. Staub Design, LLC, No. CIV. 08-cv-764-SLR" had its judgement entered 1/8/13; it was affirmed along with the statistical evidence mentioned, by the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [no. 13-1354 decided 12/3/13] and was again affirmed, including the statistical evidence, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its decision [Staub Design LLC. v. Carnivale, Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2015, No. 2015-1306 decided August 6, 2015]. This shows three federal courts have considered it proven that millions had read all or part of my book as of 2007; undoubtedly millions more have done so in the subsequent years. Though I am not a "famous" architect, I suggest that few architects have had their writings read by, and drawings seen by, millions of people and suggest that alone is worth a Wikipedia entry.
In turning to my page I see a few inaccuracies which have crept in over the years; my projects now number more than 700 across the U.S. (not 500) and my book is now self published rather than published by BookSurge. Having practiced for nearly a half century (not quite but getting close) and having won nearly every preservation award there is in N.Y.C. (I am a very traditional architect with a strong interest in preserving historic architecture) I am not unknown and am as much an architect as any of those listed under 'American Architects' - and on Staten Island, a place of 500,000 people, I can say that I am fairly well known. I do not know why I was moved from "People from Staten Island" to "Artists from Staten Island"- that is inaccurate in that I am an architect, a retired college professor, a preservationist and an author and have, pro se, changed trademark law with respect to the internet - and as you likely know, architects, while they should be artistic in nature, are part historians, part engineers, part mathematicians, part psychologists, part diplomats, part lawyers and part businessmen too - putting me in the severely limited 'artists' category is simply inaccurate. I see that has been since been corrected, for which I am grateful. I saw my page called a "Puff Piece" which does not reflect that I was the first pioneer of a major profession on the internet, and, acting pro se for 8 years in federal court, I altered trademark law regarding the internet. For these reasons, I ask that you might be kind enough to enter my comments into the discussion for me, since I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. I thank you in advance, Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:E8BA:D11:E26:2FB8 (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Architect Dave Carnivale; someone notified me that my Wikipedia page (which I've been proud to have for many years) has been suggested by someone to be deleted. I write to you because I've tried but cannot find out how to "join the discussion" and hope you will be kind enough to add my comments for me.Sounding immodest cannot be helped in listing why I should remain, forgive me. First, being the first architect in the world to have a website (affordablehouse.com) which made its debut March 15, 1996, and that at the time having been the second book anywhere on Earth printed cover-to-cover on the internet (the site was simplified and revised around 2022 after having been "on the air" so-to-speak for a quarter century is enough to warrant my page. Remember, in 1996 only 25k-30k websites were functioning at all; another 75k simply said "Under Construction."Secondly, in an 8 year federal case, pro se, which went to the del. District Court ('Carnivale v. Staub' Civ.No.08-764-SLR), the Federal Circuit (Appeal from the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office,Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 92047553 'Staub v. Carnivale) and the Third Circuit (Civil Action 1:08-cv-00764-SLR) I brought trademark law, specifically the 1948 Lanham Act regarding trademark protections into the computer age. The case is now cited throughout the country and established that tiny alterations in domain names is insufficient to protect against claims of trademark infringement. In turning to my page I see a few inaccuracies which have crept in over the years; my projects now number more than 700 across the U.S. (not 500) and my book is now self published rather than published by BookSurge. Having practiced for neary a half century (not quite but getting close) and having won nearly every preservation award there is in N.Y.C. (I am a very traditional architect with a strong interest in preserving historic architecture) I am not unknown and am, as much an architect as those listed under 'American Architects' - and on Staten Island, a place of 500,000 people, I can say that I am fairly well known.I do not know why someone moved me from "People from Staten Island" to "Artists from Staten Island"- that is inaccurate in that I am an architect, a retired college professor, a preservationist and an author - and architects, while they should be artistic, are part historians, part engineers, part mathematicians and part businessmen too- putting me in the 'artists' category is simply less accurate, if not inaccurate. I see someone called my page a "Puff Piece" which does not reflect I was the first pioneer of a major profession on the internet, and, acting pro se for 8 years in federal court, I altered trademark law regarding the internet. For these reasons, I ask that you might ne kind enough to enter my comments into the discussion for me, since I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. I may send this same message to another editor or two, but you are the first I've contacted....I thank you in advance, Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:B1A5:F394:7F02:6A17 (talk) (transferred from User talk:Jevansen)

  • Delete. Weird puff piece indeed... First architect to have a website, second book on the Internet... Sjeez. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is David Carnivale. In 1992 I read in 'The New York Times' that "someday people would have computers in their homes." Random House publishers did not like the book I wrote "The Affordable House" and I didn't intend to spend years going from publisher to publisher the way authors often do. I never intended to profit from the book; I wanted to sell the stock plans to homes featured in the book, so I resolved to find out how to get it on the "World Wide Web"(internet was not yet a commonly used term) and then wait until people got computers. I found one of the first webhosts Bway.net and on March 15, 1996 my website made its debut. There were about 100,000 websites more or less back then, and three quarters of them said "Under Construction." In 1996 only the Bible had been posted in its entirety; in 1996 I posted my entire book cover-to-cover and it remained that way without changes until it was simplified and revised in 2022. You may see The Affordable House on the Wayback Machine from nearly its first days, and the Domain name has been registered with Network Solutions since 1998. The first two years, at the dawn of the internet, few - including me - even knew domain names could be 'registered' which is why the domain name was unprotected during the first two years (1996-98). So I disagree with your calling my page a "weird puff piece." I have been fortunate enough to have been a small part of the Internet's early history, and it is documented and provable. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:E8BA:D11:E26:2FB8 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above: "In 1996 only the Bible had been posted in its entirety": if this is a claim that the Bible was at the time the only book to have been published on the web in its entirety, it's a surprising one. Project Gutenberg claims that A Christmas Carol, for example, was "released" in 1992. The release may have been via FTP, but Hart's file header (with idiosyncratic monospaced justification) encouraged people to distribute PG's files and it's hard to imagine that nobody was doing this on the WWW. If A Christmas Carol can be dismissed as slight, there's also what PG termed the complete works of William Shakespeare, which PG claims it first released on 1 January '94. (Of course, PG isn't a disinterested source for information about PG ... and so forth.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found nothing obviously helpful at archive.org or ProQuest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello; David Carnivale here. If your note means you were unable to locate "The Affordable House" from its early days on the Wayback Machine, here is the address for an archived page dated November 11, 1998 (about two years after the book appeared on the internet): http://web.archive.org/web/19981111185045/http://affordablehouse.com/ 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:89D7:3BB:FF22:368F (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant I was unable to find any WP:N-relevant sources about David Carnivale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both WP:GNG and also WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is something [12] (Staten Island Advance), there may be more at [13]. It's local, but local is not nothing. Quote "The author of the "The Affordable House" has completed about 510 buildings, including houses in various traditional styles, bars and clubs - a specialty - and recently, a small airport in Tennessee." Also this [14] from Historic Districts Council. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies This [15] is not the kind of source I'd usually use for a BLP, but it should have some WP:N value, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, if you don't mind my getting philosophical--it's the kind of thing that suggests there might be notability, and that there ought to be sources proving it, yes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per sources linked in previous comment. Some in-article ref-titles hints there may be more, like "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" Article needs to be re-written though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, I would thank Mr Carnivale for his contributions here. While it may be determined that he doesn’t now meet our Notability criteria, he has had an article here for 15 years and his input on why he believes it should be retained is of value. Second, I’m not competent to judge the notability issue myself but, noting his work on historic structures, I’d be interested in User:Epicgenius’s view. Nobody has written more on NYC’s historic buildings, and I think he’d offer a valuable perspective. KJP1 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I am not going to !vote here myself, but for what it's worth, the coverage of Mr. Carnivale on silive.com seems to mostly be letters/comments written by him, or projects that he worked on, rather than coverage about the man himself. I did find this interview and, to a lesser extent, this human-interest piece about how he creates blueprints. When I searched for his name on Google, I saw directory listings, results about other people, a self-published book, and documents relating to a lawsuit from 2006, but sadly not much else. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear KJPI, Thank you. David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:C5C3:31F6:21E4:FE1A (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though no mention has ever been made on my Wikipedia entry, and because I've never known anyone who was able to add it, there may be a lack of recognition just how much my 8.5 year federal case changed internet and trademark law. Below, you'll see I've located a few citations about it; the result was a change in how domain names are treated by federal courts and although not 'Precedential' it has been cited in federal cases in other Circuit Courts. Even the domain of Wikipedia itself now is now affected by the outcome of this case.
    Regarding the Federal Circuit, I found this :
    https://casetext.com › case › staub-design-llc-v-carnivale
    https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2642&context=thirdcircuit_2012
    (2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)
    From the legal website law.justia is this link:
    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/11-1124/11-1124-2012-01-04.html
    and also:
    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca3/11-1124
    From leagle.com is this link:
    https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120104129
    From anylaw.com is this link:
    https://www.anylaw.com/case/david-john-carnivale-v-staub-design-llc/third-circuit/01-04-2012/AoENPmYBTlTomsSBBMcm
    .
    So, while the design of 700 projects, a small airport and a small town over the course of a long career may mean an architect has left a mark on things but not have given rise to many citations on the internet, the legal case certainly did, it affects everyone with a domain name, and is alone worth the continuation of my 15 or 16 year old page, (as is the fact, accepted as proven by three federal courts from evidence they examined, that millions had read all or part of my book) thank you, sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:C5C3:31F6:21E4:FE1A (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OFFLINE sources can be used, but the people you encounter here are very likely to rely on the internet, since trying to access physical newspaper collections etc is harder. If it helps, what we are looking for, for the purpose of this discussion, are sources that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of you and about you in some detail. Add to this "rules" like WP:BLPPRIMARY. The court case(s) in itself doesn't matter here, but an article about it/you in The New Yorker probably would. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, if you're interested in editing WP on topics that interest you (apart from you), consider WP:REGISTER. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Gråbergs Gråa Sång helped explain a few details to me (thank you) but the heading said "offline" so I am replying here in hopes that it may add to the general discussion (I'm unsure if "offline" remarks can be seen by everyone discussing things here): I wonder if fame and 'notability' are being confused. Asked to name an architect, Europeans could likely name a dozen or two; ask an American and all they could name is Frank Lloyd Wright (perhaps a handful could name a second architect) - does that mean no American architect is notable or has ever done a notable thing? Except for Jonas Salk, no one who has ever developed life-saving drugs is famous, yet each is notable. In architecture there are no "Academy Awards" like Hollywood; we have a "Pritzker Prize" limited almost entirely to architects who design in the Bauhaus or International Style and there are preservation awards like the ones I received for architects with an interest in history, and the AIA gives out awards mainly to its members (and again that is limited almost exclusively to architects designing in just the International Style) but aside from a one-day mention in some press, these are soon remembered mainly by the recipients. The court cases matter in a way more visible; one relieved 15,000 New York State architects from a special-interest piece of legislation essentially forcing them to either join the private organization who wrote the bill, or suffer the consequence of having to obtain 36 college credits every 36 months for the rest of their lives to keep their license. It took me six years in court before, finally, both houses of the N.Y.S. legislature and the then-governor (Pataki) were forced to amend the law (over their previous vehement refusals to do so) thus relieving architects of that terrible choice. As for the other (Trademark) matter, it seems beyond question that protecting everyone's domain name against interlopers and bringing the 1946 trademark law into this century is notable. Wikipedia - as an encyclopedia - is more than just a 'top ten list' of what's been mentioned most often on Youtube or Salon or other popular websites - it is, I think, meant to be a compilation of knowledge and a resource for discovering things and uncovering facts not all of which have made the "Times;" I believe my being the first in the world in a major profession to be on the internet alone is enough to qualify, and that my website was the second book printed cover-to-cover on the web is more than notable enough to have my page continued. I would appreciate, since I do not know anyone who is able to do it, if one of those who've been participating in this discussion,would update my page; much has happened in the 15 or 16 years since the page was added.
    Thank you, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:810:2117:14D7:6EDA (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OFFLINE wasn't a heading, it was a hyperlink to the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Offline sources. My point was that "not have given rise to many citations on the internet" isn't necessarily the end of it. "Staten Island Advance. Thursday, April 16, 2009. Volume 124 Number 30,019 Page E6 "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" by Tevah Platt." may be the kind of source we are looking for, but I can't read it, so I have no idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, for the "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" story, does this link work for you? Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I missed it before. IMO, that counts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, David Carnivale, if this article is kept, you might want to consider providing an image for it. WP:A picture of you has guidance on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång, This is David Carnivale. Thank you but while I'm not computer illiterate, Wikipedia seems to be a universe all of its own - it took me a few days of flailing around before I discovered how to enter this discussion! My photograph (which, being very privacy conscious, I tried to keep off the internet but it was taken from the "About the Author" section of my book) is now all over the place (along with images labeled as me but that aren't me that Google searches turns up sometimes). I would have no clue as to how to add my picture here, and it would be inappropriate for me to try to alter my own page, no? Anyway, this has all been very exhausting and I've found and located all the source material I could, listed it here, listed the updated and consequential (trademark case) information that I think should be added to the page by someone authorized to do so and which, so far, no one has. I'm frankly surprised by the reliance of second and third hand materials such as web links and magazine articles by an encyclopedia and reluctance of editors debating a deletion to examine first hand sources of material establishing documentation of what is on the page or what I've added to the existing material through statements I've made here - sources such as websites operated by law schools and legal organizations summarizing the import of cases, official court websites etc. making available the various federal court opinions in their entirety, examining the Wayback Machine for evidence of the website's existence from the dawn of the internet, et cetera. I'm sure it is even possible to check with NetworkSolutions to see they've been registering my domain name since 1998.
    I know little of the ways of Wikipedia, but, with respect, it seems to me when someone says "Let's delete this" they ought to closely examine the source material at its original location - otherwise deletions are more arbitrary than academic. I hope people here decide to leave well enough alone. As far as my picture goes, since my image is all over the web anyway, any editor here has my okay to add it to the page - I cannot. To ensure it is me and not a mislabeled picture that is occasionally found on the internet, the true image shows me in front of a reddish orange ancient building in a small Trastevere piazza in Rome and I'm wearing a white shirt with vertical blue stripes.The picture can also be found in the "About the author" section of my website "www.affordablehouse.com" (and no, I'm not plugging the website; don't misunderstand please - I'm nearing the end of a long career and keep the website more-or-less as a "calling card" and something that viewers might learn from or get inspired by in forming their own thoughts and opinions; at this stage of life the last thing I want are more clients...These days I just want to sit back and relax). But that is where you'll find the photograph. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:EDE3:A409:B15B:7DA6 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. For the IP editors identifying themselves as "David Carnivale", if you wish to continue to participate in this discussion, please keep comments concise and related to sources and Wikipedia policies, subjects that can impact whether or not this article subject (you) is considered notable by Wikipedia standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liz, This is David Carnivale. I realize my text was long but it was necessary to list as many citations as possible, and to illustrate the reasons the article should be kept.I expected this to end after seven days, which I read somewhere was the usual rule. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:EDE3:A409:B15B:7DA6 (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage of this person that I can find, no book reviews either. The wall of text above being set aside, this is from the wild west days of Wikipedia, when anyone could create an article and it was pretty much let loose on the world. We have much more stringent standards now, and this just doesn't stand up. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Oaktree, This is David Carnivale. I'm sorry that is your impression, but it may have been more helpful had you addressed my being the first pioneer on the internet from a of a major profession, or had brought U.S. trademark law into the internet age, or had made the lives of 15,000 N.Y.S. architects easier, or that the book was read by millions etc. Editorial decisions should be made after research, not - pardon me for saying so - from people simply stating impressions. 72.227.222.26 (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi David. Please take a look at this AfD's talk page; I've posted a few suggestions there that you might find helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Link:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Carnivale. Yes, we have pages for discussion about pages where we discuss things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I will. Dave Carnivale 72.227.222.26 (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi David, none of the things you mention are relevant to whether there should be a Wikipedia article. Your accomplishments are certainly laudable and interesting, but are irrelevant to the question of the existence of an article. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable sources have previously published. If there are no reliable sources covering a subject, there can be no Wikipedia article, regardless of how important or significant the subject is. Please read WP:N for our policy. Also note that, perhaps counterintuitively, Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources, not primary ones, because interpretation of primary sources can be difficult and contentious. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY for more about this. A newspaper or magazine article about you (that does not rely on your own statements) would be an excellent source helping to demonstrate notability. A court website publishing a decision in a legal case would be a primary source and therefore be a weak indication of notability. CodeTalker (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CodeTalker, in case you didn't see it, sources that have been mentioned in this afd are [16][17][18][19]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I did see the sources although I was responding specifically to David's last post which doesn't mention sources, but seems to be arguing for notability based on his works. Regarding the sources, the first seems to be a typo(?) because it's just a link to this AFD discussion. The second is a reasonably good source, being about the subject, although it has a lot of quotes from the subject himself so its independence is questionable. The third is a four-sentence blurb and doesn't meet the "in-depth" criterion IMO. The fourth seems to be a discussion of a legal case in which David was involved and doesn't discuss the subject himself in any detail. So of the three, I'd say only the second contributes to notability. CodeTalker (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CodeTalker Thanks and corrected. My view: 2 is a bit of a mix, but has enough not-interview to be valid. 3 is somewhere above passing mention, partial GNG-point. 4 is a strange source, but does include some info on Carnivale/plaintiff and his doings, as well as the court cases he was involved in. I say it also adds to the case for GNG, but hard to say how much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there appears to be information about projects this person has been involved in to be found in the Staten Island Advance, there as yet to be anything beyond that source that is significantly about him. We generally consider multiple articles in a single source to be considered one notability source. I checked in the NY Times (and Staten Island news of import should be covered there) and found nothing. His book is self-published, so that does not support notability. Being party to a lawsuit itself does not support notability, only if the lawsuit gets significant press that talks about the person. Also, it looks like the Court decided [20] not to take up the case. Anyone can file, but it only matters if the court takes the case. Awards can count toward notability but local awards that get no notice outside of that jurisdiction do not themselves confer GNG. I must say that the claim that his book is "the second book to appear cover-to-cover on the internet" is simply wrong. I have a Project Gutenberg CD from that time with 10,000 books. Lamona (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, especially the cogent reasoning by Lamona, and that it's difficult to verify much of the information. If we cut out everything that we can't verify, what is left is a BLP violation. There are literally tens of thousands of writs of certiorari filed annually. The petitioner is not automatically notable, but the case he filed might be, so I would not oppose a move or redirect to the case name. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    David Carnivale, clearing up possible misconceptions: Host Colin Jost at the White House correspondents dinner a few nights ago spoke of the large circulation of the Staten Island Advance (the flagship publication of the entire Newhouse newspaper chain); it is the newspaper of record for Staten Island, whose 500,000 population makes it larger than Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Minneapolis. Some comments have made it sound like a minor supermarket circular. As far as the many articles in law journals about the change I brought about to federal trademark law and N.Y.S. law, I've discovered that after 15 years, internet articles tend to disappear. An encyclopedia conflating 'notoriety' and 'notability' and limiting inclusions to temporary, passing, gossamer mentions on the web is built on a shaky foundation, since such mentions or 'likes' or press notices all tend to disappear over time. Doctors and lawyers, engineers and the other professions do not have any way to discover who among them was first on the internet or what was the first website in their profession to appear; my page allows architects to discover just that. To make Wikipedia less complete, less a repository of knowledge and less able to disseminate knowledge by erasing that bit of early internet history is of no benefit. After all, they call it the "Groves of Academe," not the "plains." I hope everyone will see the page is better left as is, and I hope someone who is able to will update it- 15 years is a long time. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:D070:D841:D5BA:186E (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (withdrawn by nominator). ‎. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhaike Village massacre

Zhaike Village massacre (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)

There is another article (Ju County attack) which talks about that exact same incident, albeit with better sourced information. Everything written here is also written in the above article (arguably better written too). There is no reason to have 2 articles on the same incident and I propose deleting this and redirecting this link to the above article. Josethewikier (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josethewikier If your proposal is merging them, then do that? Or simply redirect it. It's already been tagged to do that for over a month, so I'd recommend doing that. There's been no opposition - I'd say you should withdraw this if that's what you want to happen, or it will take a week. Both these articles are very obviously about the same thing happening, everyone recognizes this, no one has done the merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'll try my best to merge them first then. Thanks. Josethewikier (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Josethewikier well you can't merge them if you delete them. Do you want to withdraw this, then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh. yea, I guess then. Josethewikier (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Josethewikier and PARAKANYAA: Hi I am the editor of Ju County attack. All information on the Zhaike Village massacre page had been merged with the former article. Thank you. ~~ J. Dann 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely great to know. Thank you. Josethewikier (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article made first is going to be deleted, "Zhaike Village massacre" I feel is still a better name for it, it's more descriptive and provides a more specific location. I feel the title should at least be "Ju County massacre", or "Zhaike Village attack". GoatLord234 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 03:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marnix van den Broeke

Marnix van den Broeke (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)

Working actor, but doesn't meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Unref BLP. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. It seems that there have been changes made to address the nominator's concerns.

Again, please do not move an article being discussed at AFD while the discussion is ongoing. It complicates relisting and discussion closure. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Acevedo

Michael Acevedo (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 GNG and NBIO. BLP, see tagging in article for problems with in article references, nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  00:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Finance, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If you are wondering why the article is written like crap, it is because it is machine translated from the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia. Even the article title is incorrect; the subject's name is Miguel Acevedo, not Michael. Regardless, the other sources in the article, primarily [21], as well as this article I found, should be enough to fix the verification issues. Subject passes WP:NPOL as an Argentine vice governor, which is equivalent to an American lieutenant governor. Curbon7 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cleaned up the article, which cost me nearly an hour. I hope that the article creator learns from this and no longer creates machine-generated garbage blindly copy-pasted from other language projects. Curbon7 (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the creator from creating new articles due to failing to attribute original sources, and lodged a WP:CCI report. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NPOL as a vice governor per Curbon. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hierombalus

Hierombalus (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 was draftified and declined at AfC, but the draftification was then reverted, per WP:DRAFTIFY 2d, so this is a procedural AfD.

References appear to be glancing mentions, but perhaps this should be merged to Yahwism? asilvering (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a brilliant article and it would have been better for it to spend more time in development, but I don't see any grounds for deletion. AfC is an optional process. Furius (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid reason to draft as the previously lacking references have been expanded upon. Additionally, the subject is notable enough to be credited by ancient sources as the teacher of Sanchuniation.el.ziade (talkallam) 10:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment: I think my nomination statement has been misunderstood? I brought this to AfD because a new page patroller draftified it instead of AfDing it by mistake. AfC is indeed an optional process, but this article should not have been at AfC in the first place; it should have been AfD'd. That is why it is here. The grounds for deletion is the standard one: there is not significant coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering The premise for this nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding the availability of sources. The article initially had some bare references that were expanded. There are numerous reliable sources that address the topic, suggesting that the criteria for deletion based on the lack of sources is misleading. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elias Ziade Can you share which sources you believe contain significant coverage? I'm only seeing brief mentions. For example, Lokkegard says The theophoric name of Hierombalos, priest of Ίευώ, cannot be held divine. It is probably the same name as the biblical Hīrām, from which the odious name of Baal has been left out. That's all. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering check the article el.ziade (talkallam) 16:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elias Ziade I have read the article. Which sources do you believe contain significant coverage? -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering Your concern about the expectation for "significant coverage" of a historical figure like Hierombalus is understandable, especially given the context of the Late Bronze Age./Early Iron Age It's true that for individuals from such a distant past, documented information is often limited. The survival of any records or mentions from that era is remarkable, and even minimal details can be highly valuable for historical scholarship. Considering the challenges associated with the preservation of ancient texts and the rarity of extensive records from that period, it's indeed significant that Hierombalus is known to us at all. This alone underscores his importance in historical context. Expecting extensive coverage akin to more recent historical figures may not be reasonable and could indeed lead to an underrepresentation of ancient individuals on Wikipedia. If the standard of "significant coverage" were strictly applied as suggested, many articles about ancient figures might be shelved, diminishing our understanding and representation of the past. It might be useful to revisit what qualifies as "significant coverage" in the context of ancient history and consider the value of preserving mentions of such figures, even when details are sparse. This could help ensure a more comprehensive historical record. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get another review of added sources. I agree that we can't have the same expectations of SIGCOV in figures of ancient history vs. contemporary figures who have news coverage and biographies written about them. I'm not sure where this discussion should happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Well-discussed in sources easily available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are some more sources discussing him here. I agree with the above points. Aintabli (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giedrė Labuckienė

Giedrė Labuckienė (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 GNG and NBIO. BLP, nothing found in article or BEFORE showing this has WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a number of wikis, including the Polish and French versions which have both more content and 14 and 15 sources, respectively. A 15-year-player for the Lithuanian national team, have any of the sources been checked? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finally edited it and Im gonna take a part of Polish Wikipedia

ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I haven't looked through them but a brief look of Lithuanian sources gives numerous hits, did the BEFORE focus on those or just a general Google search? Alvaldi (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article needs work, the subject seems to be notable basketball player. [22][23][24] Alvaldi (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Article definitely needs work but the subject seems to meet WP:GNG. Aside from the ones provided by Alvaldi, I found [25], [26], [27], [28]JTtheOG (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There have been substantial additions to the article since its nomination. A source review would be helpful as well as the nominator's opinion on the article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_17&oldid=1219350679"