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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:27, 17 April 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 16	April 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studios Hergé

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

Appears to fail notability. While the namesake of the studios, Hergé, is undoubtedly notable, I don't see how these studios are. When I conducted a WP:BEFORE search, most of the sources were about Hergé and not the studios themselves, and/or do not have WP:SIGCOV of the studios. The article has been tagged as requiring additional sources since 2014, and most of the sourcing is unverifiable (the two book citations do not have a page number, or ISBN, making the claim violate WP:PAGENUM, and the other is an interview with a link to an insecure website). As an WP:ATD, I'd be fine with a redirect to the Hergé Foundation, which appears to be notable, since the Foundation is the successor to the studios. Bandit Heeler (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Organizations, and Belgium. Bandit Heeler (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources giving attention to the studios, their role in the creation of the later Tintin stories, the many famous artists who worked here (most famously Bob de Moor, Jacques Martin and Roger Leloup probably, what happened to it after Hergés death, ... Plenty of reliable and indepth information from even English-language sources like this book (note, one or two of the pages listed are about the older advertising Studio Hergé had on the thirties, not the actual Studios Hergé, but most are about this one), this book, this one, ... And plenty more in French language books like this one discussing the Studios at length. Fram (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I would object to a redirection, because while technically the Foundation is the successor, their role was completely different: the Studios were a creative groupn making new comics and new drawings (for ads and so on), while the Foundation was an exploitative group, reusing existing images for new uses (e.g. clothing) but not creating things. Fram (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrated now. The French article also has some additional sources. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both Hergé, Son of Tintin and The Real Hergé: The Inspiration Behind Tintin (linked by Fram above) offer significant coverage that demonstrates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No notability problem whatsoever. Also the length of the article is sufficient. The article does need more inline references, already covered by a warning. Nomination is a clear NEXIST failure. AFDISNOTCLEANUP and SNOW apply. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The studios have received sufficient sig coverage throughout their run. X (talk) 09:21, 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.

Belg der Belgen

AfDs for this article:

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a newspaper poll (rather than similar pages on Belgian TV shows) with little to suggest that notability has been shown to the inclusion standards JMWt (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Belgium. JMWt (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to the 2011 AfD, I would say that the fact no sources have been added between then and now suggests that there aren't any to find. Hence not notable. JMWt (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major competition of Het Nieuwsblad, the second newspaper of Belgium in readership, falling just short of Het Laatste Nieuws. Nomination is focused on references in the article, unjustifiably circumventing the golden WP:NEXIST rule. gidonb (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following are articles entirely on the competition.[1] [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Important to add that the interest is continuous and the results of the Belg der Belgen are often referenced since. gidonb (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. If no more participation, this discussion will likely close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Het Nieuwsblad. Each and every source applied and suggested are from the newspaper creating the poll, so of course they're covering it every time. It's a promotion by the journal. Nothing independent or reliable applied. A newspaper might proclaim anybody anything they like, but if nobody else covered it, Wikipedia doesn't either. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fritz Behrendt

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

No refs on the page for many years. Possible that WP:NPROF is met but I'm not finding the sources to show it JMWt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Social science, and Germany. JMWt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His book Sozial Strategie für Entwicklungsländer has high citations in Google Scholar, but that's the only one. The authority control box links to an entry in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, which may meet WP:ANYBIO #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Have added some refs (Two reviews of one of his books) and two things by Katja Windisch (Windisch, Katja (2005) Shaping Social Change. The development sociology of Richard F. Behrendt, Bern , pp. 19-31. (Gestalten sozialen Wandels. Die Entwicklungssoziologie Richard F. Behrendts, Social Strategies, Vol. 39, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, 2005, 259 S.) AND Windisch, Katja (2002) Betrachtungen zur Sozialen Entwicklungsstrategie und Sozioökonomie Richard F. Behrendts. Soziale Phänomene als Vorbedingungen ökonomischer Entwicklung, in: Victoria Jäggi, Ueli Mäder, Katja Windisch (Hrsg.): Entwicklung, Recht, sozialer Wandel. Festschrift für Paul Trappe zum 70. Geburtstag, Social Strategies, Vol. 35, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, S. 74-84.).(https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Gestalten_sozialen_Wandels/xX8mWf7_3rUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Richard+Behrendt%22+-wikipedia+Windisch&pg=PA19&printsec=frontcover) These seem to me sufficient to allow a clear pass of WP:prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. We now have five reviews of two books, enough for at least a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR from me. I think the other material brings this up to a full keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the information in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland entry led me to more detail about his career and many more book reviews. Now the AUTHOR pass is obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 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 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Philip Schofield affair scandal

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

This article was created with substantial portions directly copied without attribution from Philip Schofield. It's not clear that this needs its own page, as the relevant material is included in context on the Philip Schofield article. Given the recency of the article creation, it can be safely deleted without too much concern about external links or external search engines. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Events, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unnecessary and undue split from the subject's article. AusLondonder (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As this is copied and the subject has an existing wikipedia article already. I can't think of any valid reason to keep it.Hkkingg (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is covered in context within the Phillip Schofield article, so this article is an unnecessary content fork. Don't see the need for an AtD here. Rupples (talk) 00:16, 18 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. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004

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

As far as I can tell, this law has virtually no coverage anywhere. Fails WP:GNG completely. Only references are primary sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:48, 10 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!} 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. The Act, also called CAICE, has significant coverage in many books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, Internet Archive and HeinOnline. There is significant commentary on the Act in Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes [12]. That commentary, some of which is already cited in the article, is certainly an independent secondary source. This Act is, amongst other things, the law relating to community interest companies (CICs), which law is Part 2 of this Act, and the same thing as this Act. Accordingly, there are entire books about this Act: [13] ("Law . . . of Community Interest Companies"), and many entire periodical articles about this Act. James500 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the citations cover this specific act, they only seem to cover the more general field Community Interest Companies and seem to only mention this act in passing as a source for some of the information about the field. WP:GNG requires coverage, not citation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halsbury and Current Law are entirely about this Act, and they are a commentary on the Act. Likewise Bishop's book contains extensive commentary on the Act. An Act is not a source of information. An Act is the law. To use your terminology, the Act is "the field". Those sources, and the many other books are not just "citations". You might as well claim that a book review was "just a citation" of the book being reviewed. James500 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more importantly, both Halsbury and Current Law (and other sources) also include extensive commentary on Parts 1 and 3 of the Act, which have nothing to do with CICs. So this article is not redundant to the article on CICs. Even Part 2 of the Act is not completely redundant to the topic of CICs generally (at least as opposed to the law of CICs), since that topic includes all non-legal aspects of CICs (such as the companies themselves, statistical information about them, and the economic and social implications of them). Part 2 is independently notable of CICs generally when you consider the number of non-legal sources that discuss CICs. James500 (talk) 01:52, 20 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!} 23:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Voorts: The policy WP:RELIST says ". . . relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive discussion, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, but consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable" and "While having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors. Therefore, repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should write a short explanation either within the relist template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result." Therefore please provide the required "short explanation", or just close the AfD yourself, or allow it to be closed by someone else. James500 (talk) 02:04, 2 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mirdad

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

There are no reviews of his work and no significant coverage of him. He does not meet GNG in any way. Ynsfial (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Spirituality, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 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!} 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11: From reading the article, it feels promotional to me. As the nom has failed to find any significant coverage, this is likely eligible for speedy deletion as promotion . QwertyForest (talk) 08:56, 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. There's a lot of discussion, but the "delete" opinions carry the day. In terms of numbers, they're in a relatively substantial majority, 5 to 2 (plus one neutral and draftify each). In terms of arguments, if as here notability is the key issue, a "keep" minority can only prevent deletion by making a compelling policy-based argument for inclusion - i.e., references to the kind of in-depth, independent, reliable coverage that GNG requires. Here, this is not the case.

As regards draftification, an ATD also proposed, there is neither consensus for it nor do I think it would be useful - we draftify stuff if there are reasonable prospects of improvement, but here it seems that three weeks of newspaper archive searches have uncovered most if not all that has been written about the subject. Regardless, if new sources are discoverd, draftification is still possible via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 19:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Corkran

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

No evidence of any notability. Being a member of the nobility does not equate to notability. Sources show that he lived , that he had a family and worked as a coutier to a minor royal and that he died, but nothing beyond that. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a thoroughly nice gentleman, but absolutely nothing to say about him, no sign of notability. Merely having a genealogy and existing as a courtier on the fringes of the UK's rather enormous royal family doesn't confer notability. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A knighthood very clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Nobody with a confirmed knighthood has ever been deleted. He also has an obituary, albeit a short one, in a major national newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all knighthoods are equal. KCVO wasn't conferred as a significant honour for doing anything in particular, it was a knighthood given in recognition of service to the monarch, basically an automatic consequence of his job, a high-society version of receiving a carriage clock when you retired as a station-master. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. We should therefore focus on whether the job is wikipedia-notable. Basically if we have nothing to say about an equerry except that they existed, it's hard to justify an article. In Corkran's case, even his obituary, which is contemporary and presumably written by someone with the information at their fingertips, struggles to say anything about him beyond that he went to school. In terms of deleting knights, we've converted consorts of monarchs to redirects based on the fact their notability, like Corkran's, is only inherited.

It's also a very bad sign that the article is almost entirely genealogy, spending longer talking about his parents and offspring than it does about him himself. Elemimele (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all knighthoods are equal. Indeed. KCVO is two levels above Knight Bachelor, the lowest level of knighthood! Essentially claiming it's not a real knighthood is purely your POV. Claiming his notability is inherited is patently ridiculous. He isn't notable for being married to someone notable; he received his knighthood for his achievements and service just like any other knight. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. No they wouldn't. He was her comptroller and treasurer, the head of her household, not just her equerry. Like it or not, these people held highly influential and notable positions in the United Kingdom, hence their knighthoods. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between levels of honours, and Wikipedia notability, is rather complicated. For example, a British Empire Medal is, in honours terms, one of the lowest, but it is never awarded as a retirement present, always for doing something fairly outstanding. It is often awarded to quite ordinary people who have made themselves extraordinary by their activities, which means it's often a sign of Wikipedia notability. An OBE or MBE, on the other hand, is higher, but is often given as a retirement present to senior civil figures, and therefore (sometimes) reflects merely that they had a certain job. As a sign of Wikipedia notability, it needs to be interpreted with context.

Again, the whole system is coloured with an inclination to give an award at a level depending on the social status of the recipient (which isn't something we need to reflect in Wikipedia; we're interested in what the person did). So, for example, if a university professor or academic stands out from the crowd, he will get a MBE or OBE (for example Alison Mary Smith), while a research assistant in the same field (for example Anne Edwards (botanist)), if they stand out from the crowd (which is much less likely, harder to do, and more notable when it's achieved!), they will get a British Empire medal.

In Corkran's case, of course he got a high grade of knighthood, because he was working with a high grade of nobility.

My case against an article on Corkran is simply that we have no source whatsoever to say that he did anything whatsoever (except be an equerry who went to school). What's the point in an article? Elemimele (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that grades of honours often depended, and to an extent still depend, on grade of job (e.g. traditionally BEM for an NCO, MBE for a junior or warrant officer, OBE for a field officer, CBE for a colonel or brigadier, KBE for a general officer). However, it is also true that those who got higher honours were also far more prominent by the very nature of the grade of their job, so I don't think this is an especially valid argument. I think it is very hard to argue that anyone with an honour at the level of companion/commander or knight/dame is not notable. It is odd for Wikipedia to say that people are not notable when the British government considers they are; even though we are not bound by government decrees, it is simple common sense that anyone awarded this level of honour is notable in the real world and should therefore be considered notable by Wikipedia, which, for crying out loud, considers many teenage Youtubers to be notable just because they have a significant internet presence! For obvious reasons, Sir Victor did not have, but that does not mean he was not a notable person in his day and his field, which was royal administration. It is not our place to decide that one field of endeavour is less notable than another.

Incidentally, he didn't get his KCVO as a "retirement present"; he was knighted six years before he retired and was awarded the CVO, which would also make him notable under ANYBIO, 22 years before that for being private secretary and comptroller of the household to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. And the BEM has very often been awarded as a "retirement present" after a long career of service just like any other honour; that doesn't, however, make it any less significant, as it does indeed recognise a long and distinguished career in the person's chosen field. We do not generally consider that a BEM (or MBE, OBE, RVM, MVO or LVO) meets ANYBIO simply because for the most part, with certain exceptions such as sportspeople, actors, TV presenters, etc, recipients are in careers or at grades where they do not tend to register on notability scales. That is not the case with CBEs or higher, as these are usually awarded to senior people who make a significant mark on society, even though they may not figure greatly on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your User Page, you say "I do not believe that Wikipedia should feature articles about completely non-notable people". That is surely the case here: what did this person, today completely forgotten by everyone apart from relatives, do to make him notable? I would go for Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning ordinary people with no claim to notability. A KCVO, an entry in Who's Who and an obit in The Times are all claims to notability. No knight or recipient of a CVO is non-notable by definition. Why do you think people receive honours? For doing nothing notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 17 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!} 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: definitely notable, has one source which makes it KEEP. I’m participating here because non living person’s article is being created here with an image royal family, with source I can’t find any reason why it should be deleted. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Plus they're a sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The sourcing demonstrates trivial mentions, not significant coverage. Take this "Morning's Gossip" from the Daily Mirror for example. The entirety of the relevant part of this source is one sentence "Mr Victor Cochrane has arrived at Osborne Cottage in attendance on the Princess" this is plainly not the sourcing required to demonstrate notability. Simply being a servant to a British royal does not mean you inherit notability. AusLondonder (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, WP:INHERITED does not apply (and note it's only an essay in any case). He is not notable for anything inherited from anyone else but for the achievements that gave him a CVO and then a KCVO, which are only awarded to people who are already notable. I do wish people would stop citing the wrong thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If that's the case that these awards are only awarded to "already notable" people rather than favourite servants then we need to see the GNG-level coverage to prove that. I will happily change my mind if I see something better than one line mentions in gossip columns. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I entirely agree that there unfortunately isn't much coverage (maybe if the internet had been around when he was alive there would have been a lot more!), but I also can't believe that anyone could seriously claim that someone with a CVO and KCVO (awarded in his case for holding two entirely different posts, incidentally; the CVO was awarded to him before he was a courtier) was not notable. It should be self-evident that these high honours are not randomly distributed to nobodies for doing nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify - Look, we're doing this wrong, and on the face of it the nom. has a point. The page has already improved since the nomination, but it is not a clear WP:HEY because the sources being used are primary sources. If your project is the history of Corkran, this would be a great start. But we are not writing histories, we are writing an encyclopaedia, and you need to find the secondary sources that already exist and build the page from there. Writing a page from primary sources is original research. You are doing history, not an encyclopaedia. Where are these secondary sources? I don't know. I don't see them, and I did not find them in initial searches. And for that reason this should be a delete. Publish the history and you can definitely have a page, but until someone does that, this is pretty iffy. But here's why I am making a weak case to keep this article: because this is a subject that might well elicit history articles - perhaps has already done so. There is certainly plenty in primary sources, and the shortcuts to assess notability (has a knighthood) are far from perfect, but not irrelevant. And if this were the state of the page after months of work, I would be searching hard for a redirect target at this point, on the basis that searches have failed. But, in fact, this page is week old and was nominated less than a day after it was started. No discussion on the talk page. WP:DEMOLISH applies. If I had my way, I would want this closed as "no consensus" to give the page creator a couple of months to knock this into shape before it can be renominated. Perhaps I should bold "draftify" instead (ETA, I bolded both), but ultimately it is a historical subject, a figure that we certainly might expect to see treated by historians (if not thoroughly nor directly) and a darn sight more likely to be notable than a lot of pages that we seem to want to keep. Keep iit or draftify it, but don't delete it. At least, not until we can see the final shape of it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this some more and in the light of Rupples' additional comments, I don't think I can justify keep. But my comments about DEMOLISH remain, and think we should draftify this. That is not merely backdoor deletion. It gives the creator a chance to develop this with secondary sources if any exist, and if they don't, it gives them an easy route to transfer some content to Princess Beatrice as appropriate. It is a new page, and draft space is meant for such incubation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some thoughtful arguments put forward for both keep and delete. My search found lots of mentions in newspapers stating he accompanied notable people at events plus notices of his marriage. There's also newspaper obituaries, basically stating positions held. No entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography though, which to my mind weighs against notabilty despite the honours received. I also note that Corkran despite serving Princess Beatrice for 25 years isn't mentioned in that featured article, slightly strange, but not a determining factor. Overall neutral, although the article content, which is a list of roles and wikilinked name-drops does leave some doubt as to whether notability has or can be established. Rupples (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that only a small minority of people have entries in the DNB. The vast majority of people we have articles on do not. The vast majority of people with knighthoods do not. He does, of course, have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You must know that WP:WHOSWHO is a deprecated source and does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's been deprecated as a source for information because its entries are self-authored (although it is fair to say that most of its entries are accurate, so this is probably a little unfair). However, as you must know, that is separate from establishing notability, since those included are selected by its staff on the basis of their notability and neither apply nor pay to be included. Almost all people with honours at this level are included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I would have thought Corkran would at least be mentioned in this book, given the length of his service to Princess Beatrice: The Shy Princess: The Life of Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, the Youngest Daughter and Constant Companion of Queen Victoria by David Duff [14]. A search of the copy on Internet Archive, has no mention of him in this biography, which surely adds to doubts over Corkran's notability. Rupples (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep this demonstrates again that he simply wasn't a notable individual, even in his time. Knighthoods are routinely awarded to royal aides and that does not mean they get a notability free pass. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have zero PAG-based justification for this topic being a standalone article other than the debunked assertion that simply receiving some honor corresponds to coverage sufficient to meet N. Zero IRS SIGCOV sources have been identified, and obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know it hasn't been "debunked"? Some would like it to be, but it hasn't been. obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. Yup, obviously someone else who hasn't actually bothered to take in what they're citing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You admitted recently that you feel that the part of ANYBIO that states "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" is "utterly extraneous". That's unfortunately not how policy or the English language works. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Do you really feel the need to post a comment after everything I write? How is what you've just said at all relevant to what I or JoelleJay wrote? And please don't cherrypick and take out of context what I write either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Your reply to Joelle Jay was unnecessary. AusLondonder (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I was pointing out flaws in her entire comment. That's clearly a legitimate response. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has the British Newspaper Archive been checked? I can check tomorrow if this is not already closed by then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral between keep and delete. I don't see an obvious AtD. I'm taking into account both the guidance on honours in WP:ANYBIO and the lack of indepth coverage, which means the subject probably doesn't satisfy the GNG. I also note that satisfying WP:NBIO#Additional criteria does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Rupples (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the pass of WP:ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight), the decent expansion of the article proves that Corkran passes WP:NBASIC, which states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – the many mentions of him and coverage across years of his life, as well as the nation-wide coverage of his death (some of which has some depth and could be considered sigcov imo, e.g. [15]), proves that this satisfies it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Nothing to indicate this meets WP:ANYBIO, and the arguements towards such boil down to ILIKEIT, not guidelines and sources. // Timothy :: talk 03:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this not pass WP:NBASIC, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? There seems to be a pretty fair case for this passing ANYBIO as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said above, this is a new page. Rupples, you say there is no obvious AtD, but draftify is available. Are people opposed to that AtD? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case you put forward for draftify is a good one. If the article creator, who has been properly notified of this discussion, indicated acceptance, it would tip my recommendation in that direction. Rupples (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of draftifying? Its already an excellent article at nearly 600 words and contains a number of different sources that IMO satisfy WP:NBASIC (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability); not to mention some sources that could be argued as SIGCOV and a pass of ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC states:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
It is noted in the discussion above that sources are primary and that coverage of the subject is not significant. You point to one source (paywalled) which tells us of his death, confirms he was Gentleman-in-Waiting to princess Beatrice while in Spain and appointed an Equerry and then treasurer of the Household. We learn he was educated at Eton, the names of his parents and died 3 days after a serious operation. Is that SIGCOV? Well it's something. Reliable yes, secondary and independent? Well the notice was probably placed there and it is a report of death. It is not great, but even if we accepted it, it is still not multiple. I am not seeing an NBASIC pass here. But a source analysis is welcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC does mention that quote, and then below it states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, which is what we have here (and I'll note that the obit I referenced is 164 words; that's SIGCOV IMO for a subject like this). The Burke's Peerage source may be primary (?), but the many newspaper refs absolutely can count towards NBASIC, given that they allow us to develop a reasonable portrait of his life, and considering that they do and that we have someone who passes WP:ANYBIO with an honor no subject has ever been deleted while possessing ... this should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but the many newspaper refs absolutely can count towards NBASIC". But NBASIC says
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't previously heard the interpretation that newspapers are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability; IMO that'd be a pretty drastic change from what seems to be accepted practice. Its also worth noting that the one ref notes that "he proved his business and social capacity in a way that ensured him a great popularity" – something like that would highly likely result in further coverage as well, from my understanding – not every source from 1909 is currently accessible to us. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and the policy: WP:PRIMARY - see note d. But, in fact, newspapers as a class are not primary sources. The question is more nuanced, and will depend on the question being asked of the source. Which sources do you think are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with the nation-wide coverage of his death? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reporting his death? See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. A documentary of his life? that would be secondary. Something in between? Let's analyse it more closely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 2 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 no consensus‎. No consensus to delete after a month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed fundamentalism

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

This is an ill-defined religious "movement". I doubt anyone identifies themselves as a Reformed fundamentalist. That's not necessarily fatal, but makes it harder to identify what the group is. You can google "Reformed fundamentalism" and find lots of hits, but many of them will be using it as a pejorative and foil for something else. I think it is possible that a phenomenon called "Reformed fundamentalism" exists as something that could be defined using reliable independent sources, but it would be difficult and this article does not even begin to attempt it. I think the current Christian fundamentalism page appears to do this quite well for that group, most of which would also not self-identify. But I think there are zero independent reliable sources in this article (even Packer is not independent), so I think the best course is WP:TNT. The article is original research sourced mostly to different groups and their beliefs, almost none of which identify themselves as "Reformed fundamentalists." The closest would be Packer's Fundamentalism and the Word of God, since Packer would identify as Reformed and wrote a book on fundamentalism. But even there Packer was writing a polemic to a broader audience than the Reformed world; he was not arguing for "Reformed fundamentalism" but Christian fundamentalism. Jfhutson (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 3 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!} 07:36, 10 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!} 07:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term is in use in the scholarly literature. The page may well need work but I'm not sure it is bad enough for WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it really is a thing - particularly with the Bible Presbyterian Church and the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster - but the article isn't very good. St Anselm (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there independent reliable sources linking these to a "Reformed fundamentalist" movement? -- JFHutson (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like this might close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Lance Stafford Larson Award

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

Non-notable student award. Broc (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Computing, and Maryland. Broc (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be less noteworthy than the ACM SRC, the APS Apker Award or the Morgan Prize? Heraldicdam1 (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what any of those are either, to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACM Student Research Competition, LeRoy Apker Award, Morgan Prize. All student research awards that are regarded as very prestigious in their respective fields of CS, physics and mathematics. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vaguely mentioned here [16] in a non-secondary source. I don't see anything about the award otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fair bit more:

[17]https://www.ee.ucla.edu/ece-phd-students-research-recognized-in-ieee-lance-stafford-larson-best-student-paper-competition/

[18]https://www.khaleejtimes.com/article/aus-student-wins-top-international-honour

[19]https://eee.metu.edu.tr/node/1040 Heraldicdam1 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the article with secondary sources. It's fair critique that it should not have relied on primary sources to begin with. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 15:50, 10 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!} 07:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still struggle to see how the additional listed sources above, who all read as "X has won the award", contribute to notability. The simple existence of an award and the fact that it is indeed awarded does not mean it deserves a page on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at:List of IEEE awards. What coverage is there about e.g. the IEEE Richard Harold Kaufmann Award, except for award announcements?

By the standard you are advocating, no prizes except for the Nobel, Turing, Abel, Fields and Breakthrough Prize deserve a page. Yet, others, like the Kaufmann Award, exist because they are thought of as highly indicative of great work within their respective fields - who often are too niche and specizaized to receive attention outside of award announcements. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid WP:WHATABOUTX, we are discussing this specific page, not other ones. Broc (talk) 12:56, 18 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) 02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I opened the refs and saw what I expected - niche coverage of a non notable award. Desertarun (talk) 06:57, 2 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. I'm WP:AGF here and following the assessment of the people who say they're subject matter specialists - not that there's anybody contradicting them or asking to keep the article. Sandstein 19:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotech metallurgy

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

This page is a reinvention under a different name of established metallurgy and materials science by a scientist at UCLA in 2018. Well before nanotechnology became a buzzword, metallurgists and material scientists were using structure at the nano size scale (mainly) deliberately in commercial materials, for instance steels and more recently superalloys. There is nothing in this article which is not already covered better elsewhere, both within Wikipedia and outside. Beyond this the article also has structural problems with much of it a list that is not expanded upon, and many parts are written as WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:OR, although I think much (most?) of what is here is already established science. Neither Wikipedia nor scientists should be reinventing the wheel. (Yup, this page does annoy me!) Ldm1954 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: after I posted the AfD I realized that the editor who wrote the article is also the one who invented the name, so I have added a WP:COI to the list of issues with this page. For reference, he does not appear to have made any other contributions to Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a lot of sympathy with the nominator here. A google search turned up a phenomenal number of hits for the term "Nanotech metallurgy" but they all seem to have very close links to MetaLi, a company owned by Xiaochun Li, whose name also bears an uncanny relationship to that of the creator of the article. I can't help but feel that the vast majority of the many sources available to support this article are actually direct or indirect-but-close products of Li, and the whole thing is extremely promotional, reeking of blowing one's own trumpet. This is not the place for autotrumpetery. We need evidence that a decent body of people other than Li are using exactly this term, or the article should be deleted. It isn't enough to find metallurgical publications that happen to mention nanotechnology. A glazier can use a screwdriver but screwdriver-driven-glazing doesn't automatically become a notable term. Elemimele (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment, looks a bit like SYNTH, but I'm not an expert in either nanotechnology or metallurgy so can't really assess it. Artem.G (talk) 19:18, 14 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!} 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well I am a scientist and this is a mashup of nanotech and metallurgy that has no basis in common usage that I know of. This article has been through AFC and was created in good faith, however I'm not interested in a COI editor (a university professor and his company) trying to create a new scientific discipline. I checked refs, the COI editor, and googled - the nom has got this bang on. Desertarun (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your analysis, I am also a scientist and this is part of my area which is why I nominated it. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:24, 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. No consensus to delete or redirect. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunguma Kodu

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

Yet one of many articles created in a spree by Rajeshbieee in violation of WP:NOTDATABASE. Although this film has a notable hero, I can't find third-party sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Tamil films of 1988. Simple search did not show any reliable sources with any coverage enough to warranty a page. Film can be viewed on YouTube and we know it is there but reliable sources are not available. This is mostly the case with less known or forgotten films. The sources on the page do not have any coverage and are unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to V. Azhagappan#Filmography: or to the list mentioned. Not opposed to keep if sources are presented (opposed to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:27, 10 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!} 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: The article is still undersourced, but kudos to Srivin for adding more sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed the refs added and they don't support notability. They are just listings or such. Desertarun (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an unusual AFD discussion as the nomination has been withdrawn but there is more support for Deletion than Keeping the article. Please review recent improvements to the article that have occurred over the past two days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for an evaluation of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still under discussion? I already said withdraw, per WP:HEY. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the withdrawal, there are extant deletion !votes. Personally I'd have closed it with another week having passed without input but a relist is a viable call. Star Mississippi 02:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If the consensus isn't "keep", then "redirect" is better. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, there is also more than one redirect target article suggested which might result in a No consensus closure. Closers shouldn't be deciding which target article is more appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 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 delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Brunson Marks

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

Regretfully I can't find any evidence she meets WP:GNG. There is no obituary of her death in 1969 or anything about her life except for the 1928 book that has her as president of a Burbank club (not notable enough for its own article), which was not a national position. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried to find some references to establish notability but it came up blank. W C M_email 18:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in Ebscohost search, nothing on Scholar, no indication that she ever did anything of any encyclopaedic interest or importance, just barely scrapes past WP:A7 as president of a women's club. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO in spades; no persistent coverage (main source from 1928; most recent source, 1970: a passing mention, inadequate for the paragraph it supposedly supports). More broadly fails GNG. No redirect to Woman's Club of Burbank is possible, and the umbrella page (unsurprisingly) mentions neither Burbank nor Marks. ——Serial Number 54129 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I think there are some naming issues which may make searching for content difficult on this person. When I searched for "Jane Brunson Marks" in neswpapers.com nothing came up, but when I looked for just "Jane Marks" thousands of articles popped up and I ultimately was able to find her obituary in the Los Angeles Times from searching under that name. I think it likely that there will be more sources under "Jane Marks" but it will be difficult to sort out her between the many other women of that name. I'm loathe to delete an article with a biographical entry in a reference work on American women. The 1928 source is a strong indicator of notability on its own. If we had just one more source of this type it would be a clear keep. Given the name search challenge, I prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, I found a reference speaking about her father in which his children with Effie Fox are "Jennie and Clair", so there may be sources where's she's referred to by the nickname Jennie. ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on refs added since my last post, I believe the article passes WP:SIGCOV now and have struck the "weak" part of my earlier vote.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

Keep on the strength of the recently-added references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 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!} 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the "Women of the West" (an early who's-who) the other sources show (at best) that she existed. There's no plausible claim for notability. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more comments on the quality of additions since the article's nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in Gbooks, Gnewspapers, or over at the Library of Congress newspaper archive. The book from 1928 is biographical, but I don't really see why she's notable for our purposes, active social life/helping others, but that's not quite enough for our notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sharing 4meter4's sense that inclusion in biographical reference works is a reasonable heuristic for encyclopedic relevance, I find the additional sourcing discovered since the deletion discussion was first opened persuasive. To the sentiment that Marks's position wasn't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, my impression from WP:GNG is that notability is determined not by the perceived prestige of a position but by coverage in sources. Coverage from biographers/journalists/historians/etc. is what confers notability, whether on a king or club woman. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Mentions are not indepth coverage. // Timothy :: talk 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes a mention or what is coverage in certain cases is probably a matter unlikely to achieve universal consensus; to at least explain why I see significant coverage, I'll mention that I find persuasive this essay's observation: An example is that a paragraph-long obituary of a scientist in a respected non-local national newspaper will be treated as more conducive of significant coverage than a paragraph-long obituary of an un-elected politician in a respected non-local national newspaper. A short obituary about an unelected politician in the Los Angeles Times doesn't convey as much significance as an obituary of the same length about a club woman like Jane Marks does, as such figures are less likely in general than politicians to get such obituaries at all. Also, WP:OHW guides my reading of the Women of the West entry; as a biographical dictionary, it has a compressed format that conveys more information in fewer words. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the already added/pointed out sources, many more exist. I found several in Newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia library after multiple revised searches, given that she was known or written about under different names, more sources are likely to exist. Not all sources need to be SIG/in-depth coverage. But along with a few in-depth sources present in the article already, these brief mentions indicate she was a known figure regardless of the significance of her work or positions. X (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article subject appears to have been a pillar in her community, but she is not notable. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. The LA Times is a death announcement, not a full obit, and the rest of the sources that have been uncovered since the discussion began are either brief mentions or about the subject's family, not herself. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 2 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 00:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qaum

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

This appears to be just an Arabic dictionary definition for Nation. Both sources used are just for the English word. At one stage this was a redirect to Nation, but this doesn't meet the usual expectation for cross-language redirects of specific relevance. Also of note is that the ar.wiki article ar:قوم is not about Nation, but a short stub about something else. Originally this article was a redirect to Qawm, but it is not mentioned there and I'm unsure if that is also a cross-language redirect. CMD (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CMD (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef. Desertarun (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gosh this has been knocking about for twenty years! Just a dictionary definition of a word in another language. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Beezer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Beezer Book

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing found which suggests there is independent notability to the inclusion standards beyond The Beezer, not clear this content could be supported fully with references per WP:V even if it was to be merged. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Beezer. These are common finds in secondhand bookshops in the UK. Have briefly searched for sources for WP:V but found nothing. Orange sticker (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It could be redirected to The Beezer per ATD. Desertarun (talk) 09:39, 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!} 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Beezer as no standalone sig coverage of the topic. X (talk) 16:30, 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 merge‎ to List of bicycle parts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bashguard

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a WP:DICDEF which would be difficult to expand and source properly. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 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) 09:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of bicycle parts. Sourcing a basic definition is easy enough, e.g. [20]. Jfire (talk) 13:10, 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) 10:50, 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.

Holderness museums

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

Unclear what this article is even about. Mentions one small archive, without a claim to notability, shared across the 3 museums that aren't otherwise tied together. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This BBC reference explains the oral history project. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting coincidence that the project officer's name in that link is so similar the article creator. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its a project or scheme to record oral histories. Its not encyclopaedic. I searched and looked for sources but there's nothing I can find. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selectively merge into Hornsea Museum, or vice versa. They are one and the same registered charity. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge as suggested by Bearian, specifically into Hornsea Museum, because IMHO the museum page clearly describes a specific and notable physical location already with cited pagespace. We can clearly verify Hornsea Museum. If a demonstrated connection between all three can be shown in reliable sources, I'd be happy to see this namespace recreated as describing that organization, including detail of all related locations. BusterD (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as fair option. Agletarang (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Midnight's Children. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chutnification

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

I don't think this topic is notable enough to have it's own page but the information would be useful as a small section in Midnight's Children. Perhaps under style or reception. (I hope this is the right way to go about this) Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Midnight's Children per nom.

Neocorelight (Talk) 04:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Midnight's Children per nom. The vast majority (if not all) of Google Scholar hits for the term are about the novel or use it as the primary example. Jfire (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This is a Rushdie-ism and at most belongs in the Midnight's Children article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 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. ✗plicit 14:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Grammar School

AfDs for this article:

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

Content of article has been significantly expanded since previous nom but no citations have been added that demonstrate WP:NSCHOOL has been met. Since the previous AfD closed as draftify the article creator has moved it to mainspace twice without addressing or discussing the notability issue. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Rich Smith, @FatCat96, @Aydoh8, @Indefensible and @GraziePrego who participated previously, and @Liz who draftified for the second time. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Delete: I Have added some sources but they are mostly either unreliable, or don't have significant coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are interviews and not online sources. Thus, references were not attached. Samuel Ola (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiews are a primary source, in order for the article to be kept we need "significant coverage from reliable secondary sources". 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 11 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 06:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ There is a distinct lack of sourcing on the page, but we are told it was established in 1956 so this is a well established school, and this is born out by having an active old students association (WESGOSA) which helps verify several notable alumni already listed, including the first lady of Ghana [21]. So this is a school with significant notable alumni. It is also the case study school in this Ph.D. thesis [22] on learning styles and academic performance in Biology. This study [23] also uses the school as the experimental group in their study on teaching trigonometry. Although the secondary information about the schools in these studies is limited, they do add to the case that the school is significant, well established and of note within the community. There is also a lot of news paper coverage, as noted above. Those are primary sources. What remains lacking at this point is a good secondary source that verifies the information already on the page. If we had that, this would be a clear keep. I have not found that yet, but I think there is a suitable case, based on the notable alumni, the active old student association, and the academic references, to argue this crosses the line. (ETA: We do have this history, from a newspaper, written on the occasion of the school being 50 years old. [24] )Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - for me there just are not enough suitable sources for !keep. I agree one might think there are sources for a school of this age, however I do not think we can move from draft without suitable sourcing. Given that it has moved back and forth from draft to main, it seems like the best option is !delete until such time someone can rewrite with sufficient sources to satisfy the AfC process. JMWt (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, I had not spotted that draft back-and-forth. Perhaps the performer of the move can comment. On the basis of the lack of in page sourcing yet repeat moving to mainspace (making draftify unavailable as an ATD) I would be inclined to move to delete pending some explanation on that. Is there a redirect ATD available? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel Ola: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the history, I would like a stronger consensus. Should that end up in delete/draftify, a promise to respect consensus would also be ideal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firming up my earlier comments. I note that we do not have the secondary sources, and the lack of comment from the nom. and my own failure to turn any up lead me to believe that we cannot write an encyclopaedic article here. Considering the history and the IAR aspect of my original argument, I believe delete is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 25 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp El Tesoro

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 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. [25][26], [27], [28], ProQuest 390323292, ProQuest 235247096. One of the camp counselors received the President's Volunteer Service Award: [29]. 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Argentina. 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 [30], [31]. 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

(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. Giant Snowman 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Habst's expansion, AGFing the Japanese sources that coverage is sufficient. Giant Snowman 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, and Canada. 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

(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]

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) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Latter Day Saints. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places. Doesn't seem like there's enough to make a notable stand-alone page from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 22 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]

Redirect to List of Book of Mormon places. Available secondary coverage of Jershon is better suited to summarization in Anti-Nephi-Lehies, for which Jershon is the setting. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:27, 28 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

(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 [32][33][34][35] show some media interest. Reywas92^Talk 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. Reywas92^Talk 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

(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)

(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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some reviews out there in trade journals, but the independence of those is highly questionable. I cannot find any sources meeting criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:07, 19 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have restored the references and neutral content which was removed by various users last year and also expanded the page a little. Here are a few references that I have identified which provide significant coverage:
- Sriram, M. (20 January 2022). "The rise, fall and resurrection of a startup: How Exotel persevered through a tumultuous decade". Moneycontrol.
- Nair Ghaswalla, Amrita (19 September 2016). "Cloud telephony co Exotel dials talent for growth". Business Line.
- John, Nirmal (5 February 2016). "Under cover, inside your cellphone". Fortune India.
- Ramakrishnan, N. (2 June 2013). "In the cloud, calling SMEs". Business Line.
- K.J., Shashidhar (26 March 2013). "Meet your next-gen telephone operator". Times of India.
- Bhalla, Tarush (30 November 2022). "Exotel bets big on traditional segments, product bundling to beat macroeconomic impact". The Economic Times.
- Saxena, Radhika (26 July 2012). "Exotel: Your business phone line gets smarter". Moneycontrol.
- Modgil, Shweta (9 September 2016). "The Cloud Will Connect Us All". Inc42.

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]

Delete sources are failing to establish brand notability generally, mostly Organic PR with content approval from agencies. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Here are a few more sources with adequate independent commentary and analysis:
- Raghavendra, Sumanth (28 January 2021). "Exotel's US$5.4 million Series B—an unusual startup funding story". The Ken.
- Raghava, Avinash (7 March 2024). The Grit Stories. ISBN 9798893226089.
- Upadhyay, Harsh; Manchanda, Kunal (7 July 2022). "Exotel records 12 fold jump in profits with flat revenue growth in FY21". Entrackr.
- J., Anand (22 March 2018). "Seed money was enough for this startup to break even, build a sustainable B2B biz". TechCircle.

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]

- Sriram, M. (20 January 2022). "The rise, fall and resurrection of a startup: How Exotel persevered through a tumultuous decade". Moneycontrol.
- K.J., Shashidhar (26 March 2013). "Meet your next-gen telephone operator". Times of India.
- Saxena, Radhika (26 July 2012). "Exotel: Your business phone line gets smarter". Moneycontrol.
- D’Monte, Leslie (8 May 2013). "BackBack Telephone calls from the cloud". Livemint.
- Ghoshal, Abhimanyu (27 May 2013). "Smart telephony begins to take shape in India as Exotel launches developer API in beta". The Next Web. — 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:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Estonia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Svartner --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:11, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Georgia (country), and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject definitely fails WP:NSKATE and I am struggling to find any coverage at all. For reference, the Cyrillic script transliteration of her name seems to be Екатерина Заикина. JTtheOG (talk) 00:23, 24 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:

(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. Reywas92^Talk 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:

(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 $\mathbb {R} ^{2}$ " 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

(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 [36] (Staten Island Advance), there may be more at [37]. 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 [38] from Historic Districts Council. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies This [39] 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 [40][41][42][43]. 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 [44] 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR. None of his parts even had a full name, just "Werewolf" and the like. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terry Pratchett's Hogfather as his best known role. In agreement that this fails NACTOR. gidonb (talk) 03:50, 8 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

(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 [45], 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Religion. 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

(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. [46][47][48] 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 [49], [50], [51], [52]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]

Keep Per rationale by JTtheOG. Chekidalum (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is evidently a notable player. Niafied (talk) 07:27, 28 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studios Hergé}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belg der Belgen (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Fritz Behrendt}}