Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 22 February 24 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard_J._Christiansen[edit]

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

Article is clearly written by WP:COI Dialmayo (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Christiansen is likely notable given the number of books he's published and his works that have been featured. That said, the article is in terrible shape with many NPOV, tone and formatting issues. I'd say it could be improved slowly in the background before being released again into the mainspace. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 09:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the cites I tried are dead links. Wizard Press is a weird self-publishing outfit of an organization that also sponsors weddings. (?). The books are held in very few libraries (single digits). The article is promotional, and appears to be a wp:SPA. Lamona (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that one of his books, published by McGraw Hill, had over 200 libraries listed in WorldCat. Another had zero. So that's not much. Also, this Wizard Academy that published one book is not an accredited business school. Lamona (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his most prominent work seems to be the Zig-Zag Principle, and the best I could find for it were two blog reviews. Rusalkii (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Lamona. Comically promotional as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonnotable promotion with COI and dead-linked sources. Article was created by a single-purpose account that has done nothing on Wikipedia except create this thing. 09:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
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 00:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuit Belly[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per RfD outcome. Pinging participants who may want to join this discussion. TartarTorte, Mdewman6, and Thryduulf. CycloneYoris talk! 23:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kenck[edit]

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

Chair of a state-level party affiliate fails WP:NPOL. Other deletion discussions for people in the same position have indicated that the position is not inherently notable for an officeholder who has not served in other, more notable positions. KidAd • SPEAK 22:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 03:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaktimaan (upcoming film)[edit]

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

WP:NOT YET (films). As per sources [1] they are still looking for cast and director,so principal photography has not yet started. Sid95Q (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of Ring characters. ✗plicit 00:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reiko Asakawa[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, while there's a fair number of hits on Google Scholar and Books, the vast majority are simply from descriptions of the plot of Ring and related media, which don't confer notability. There's also a few papers, such as these two, that do give some analysis of the subject's role. I considered trying to rescue this article using these sources, but after examining them carefully, I'm of the opinion that they're only analyzing Reiko Asakawa in the context of readings of Ring and related media's views on femininity, and said content would be better included in the context of The Ring (franchise) and articles about its entries. There is no discussion of Reiko's significance in popular culture, and even the most detailed analysis, "Patriarchy and the Horror of the Monstrous Feminine: A comparative study of Ringu and The Ring", Reiko is treated primarily as a foil to Sadako Yamamura. As we fall short of GNG, redirect to The Ring (franchise) seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fairlight Primary and Nursery School[edit]

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

Appears to fall short on WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Best coverage I can find is a trivial mention in the local paper and another trivial mention in this textbook relating to EAL students. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I found another paragraph in the same local paper and nothing more. Rusalkii (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranch One[edit]

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

Former? fast food chain. They had a "promising niche" and were not a big company. The founders got in trouble, which caused a brief media flurry twenty years ago, but the article even says "indictments, which also accused the two men, Sebastian Rametta, the chief executive, and James Chickara, the vice chairman, of having organized-crime ties. The company itself was not implicated."

Even if it had been, it never amounted to much of significance and although the company was purchased out of bankruptcy, it seemed to have vanished without much notice. An Archive of their site has a handful of clippings, but there's nothing of significance or depth to approach WP:ORG/CORP.

and you too will be singing BNL One Week or be craving chicken upon reading this. Star Mississippi 21:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. While the keep !votes outnumber the deletes, they aren’t exactly convincing. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Álvarez (sprinter)[edit]

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

Alvarez does not meet the inclusion guidelines for Olympians. We also lack any sigcov. Let alone the multiple examples of indepdent sigcov that is required by GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple medal winner, including gold, therefore meeting WP:NATH and WP:SPORTBASIC. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of these standards require that any article have multiple sources to show notability. There are no sources on this article that meet the standards of Sigcov. I am also not convinced that every medal at the level of a country that is called "silver" or "gold" is actually a sign of notability if it is won. We have to show that the competition in question actual received some actual reliable source coverage, which has not been shown for any of the competitions where this person won a medal. Votes like this by Lugnuts are exactly why many of us want to scrap Sports SNGs entirely, because they are being consistently abused to try and keep articles without Sigcov. In the case of Lugnuts he has been told over and over again that these SNGs require that subjects for which we create articles also pass GNG, and he has consistently ignored this advice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NTRACK. Likely to be non-English coverage at the time which will now be inaccesible. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I was unable to find anything to meet WP:SIGCOV, I agree with NemesisAT that this meets criteria 1 of WP:NTRACK because Alvarez did complete in the Olympics: [2]. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sport notability guidelines say that the subjects must still have Sigcov. They are not an end run around the requirements of GNG, just a suggestion of what is likely to meet GNG. Plus there is currently a supported by the mass number of people participating proposal to drop the Olympics prong from athletics guidelines in line with the decision last year that only Olympic medalists are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should make our decision based on what WP:NATH currently says, not on what it might say in the future. If NATH changes, we can re-visit. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: while we're at a numeric keep, the votes aren't in line with current policy requiring significant coverage. Relisting for time to find said coverage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets NTRACK, also won other medals. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional delete unless significant coverage can be provided (I have a hard time finding anything, as results often lead to Manuel Álvarez Bravo...). A few editors enthusiastically sustaining a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore the requirement for significant coverage (which is what NTRACK is supposed to be an indicator of, not a guarantee) does not mean that the community accepted guidelines stop applying. WP:IAR also says that rules should be ignored if they prevent improving the encyclopedia. In this case, even if NTRACK was somehow a valid notability criterion, I do not see how having a two sentence article, basically copied from databases, and with no indication that anybody has or will spend time improving it up to encyclopedic standards, is a good thing; and thus it would be an improvement to the quality of the encyclopedia to remove sub-standard content. Thus delete per the already mentioned failure to find content which would be sufficient to sustain an encyclopedic article (this is the whole raison-d'etre of the notability guidelines); the blatant fail of WP:NOTDATABASE (as an article based entirely on databases, well...); and WP:IAR as argued. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic fails NTRACK as it lacks the level of coverage (= GNG) mandated by that guideline ("The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline"). If there is likely to be non-English coverage, then the article is to be created after this is found, not before. Avilich (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:NATH (a.k.a. NTRACK). I am not convinced by the interpretations above that seek to effectively undermine NATH. Why does NATH exist if it says nothing different to WP:GNG? Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some citations to the official 1933 IOC report, which is conveniently digitally archived, about his 1932 Olympics appearance. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those sound like primary sources to me, which we are not supposed to be using to build articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NATH is only a predictor (not a very good one at that) of whether GNG will be met, it's not an actual standard of notability. And the sources you added are primary, they don't confer notability. Avilich (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have followed WP:PRIMARY appropriately. Any concerns about edits to the article can be tackled on the article. Above, it was suggested that I do not see how having a two sentence article, basically copied from databases, and with no indication that anybody has or will spend time improving it up to encyclopedic standards, is a good thing: well, I, a random new editor to this article, took a bit of time, and I've now expanded the article a little, without copying from databases. I didn't do a lot, but Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and this article can improve over time. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is notability, not regular editing, and the status of the article and sources have not changed since the beginning of the AfD. Avilich (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant achievements in major sporting events, and deleting this would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development Trusts Association Scotland[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NORG. No in-depth coverage exists from searches in Google, Google Books, Google News or Google News Archive. Given sources are either WP:PRIMARY or unrelated to the subject. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AllyD: I agree that LPL is also of questionable notability. When I get time I will search for sources on it, but if nothing substantial comes up, it will be next for AfD. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The umbrella organisations such as these exist but tend not to attract the depth of coverage needed here. I am inclined to think that it would be better to focus on an article about the Development Trust phenonenon, for which such associations and projects provide examples (probably bedded in the Development trust article), but even that would need strong references to published assessments which I am struggling to find. AllyD (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 00:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ReforMers (Hungarian political party)[edit]

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

Not notable, party leader (and only known member) Andrea Varga-Damn today announced this extra-parliamentary minor party (support with around 0%) will not participate in the 2022 election. Page in Hungarian wiki was also deleted in January 2022, citing lack of its notability.Norden1990 (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Bay Credit Union[edit]

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

The article was rejected in AFC, hence taking it to AFD to judge its merits. From the references available on the article at this moment, we can say the subject lacks NCORP. But there may be additional references which aren't added here, lacking which it should be deleted. Chirota (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an additional citation regarding its historical significance. CF7512 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There doesn't seem to be much significant independent coverage so probably fails WP:NCORP. GoldMiner24 Talk 19:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added additional sources that associate the significance of the Senate bill in which Liberty Bay was cited and the Federal Credit Union Act. I've also removed some irrelevant information about the 2017-2018 merger. CF7512 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with the additional sources, this topic still fails WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 13:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq[edit]

List of people associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no clear definition of who should be on this list. This lists heads of state/government and certain government ministers of some countries. It also includes some notable individuals from the military etc, but there is no concise definition.

Also there are no sources, and I can't see a reasonable basis on which to find sources to include. There is nothing of substance here that's not included in 2003 invasion of Iraq Pi (Talk to me!) 17:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shadee Elmasry[edit]

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

Seems more like a fan-built/promo article about a non-notable "scholar" who doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR than anything encyclopedic. He doesn't appear to be widely cited afaict and doesn't appear to be notable otherwise. CUPIDICAE💕 17:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Mishra[edit]

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

CEO of a non-notable company; all third-party articles appear to be press releases or advertisements (with bylines like "brand media"). OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Computing. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly self-promotion. Any kid can declare themselves "founder of a start up". W Nowicki (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is nothing but self-promotion, supported by a walled-garden of PR pieces and pay-to-play placements. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent coverage. PR articles, non-RS sites and interviews do not contribute to GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional content present, lacks notablility as per the nom. Timetraveller80 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly promotional article without notability. Pinakpani (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable from any angle. Fails GNG and BASIC. Cirton (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is a great example of WP:HEY, as the last few !voters indicated. Props to User:Cbl62 for improving the article, which looked like this when it was nominated. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Newman (ice hockey)[edit]

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

This article is based only on sports databases, not on any examples of significant coverage. An attempt to find significant coverage found no examples of such. All sports SNGs were determined by RfC to be under the guideline that articles must meet GNG as well, and this article does not in any way meet GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, played nine games in the National Hockey League, and thus meets NHOCKEY, which states: Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they: Played one or more games in the National Hockey League... And NSPORT also says in bold: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. That's an or. I also believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that we have never deleted a player in the NHL (neither have we ever deleted a multi-game player in the NFL, MLB, or NBA, either). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also found that Newman played for several other teams between 1929 and 1940, in addition to his time in the NHL. See [4]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you found another stats page that references him. You present 0 sources that show significant coverage and entirely ignore my nomination. The sports SNGs explictly require we have significant coverage, but you choose to ignore that requirement and incorrectly claim that article passes the relevant SNGs when in fact without significant coverage it does not pass SNGs at all. There was a 2017 RfC that very clearly specified that sports SNGs do not allow us to ignore GNG when deciding to keep articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that getting rid of an article on someone who played nine games in the NHL (and eleven seasons in other leagues) is the opposite of improving WP, and so I also base my "keep" position on WP:IAR, which states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Ontario. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it appears Johnpacklambert is violating WP:CANVASS by going to the talk pages of several deletionist/anti-sports editors and telling them about this discussion. See [5] [6] and [7]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed all of those posts. The user above has still failed to produce even one example of significant coverage, so he should withdraw his keep vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also think that we need to stop allowing people to throw out labels such as "deletionist" and "anti-sports". What we want is an end to Wikipedia drowning in sports stats tables masquerading as articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is "we"? That may be what you want, but it's not necessarily what everyone else wants. I think you're forgetting that Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. If you don't like sports articles... don't read them? NemesisAT (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a biography, it is a sports table presenting itself as an article and lacking any actual significant coverage. Articles in Wikipedia need to be built on significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I searched the archives of the Detroit Free Press from 1929-32 surrounding the years when Newman played for Detroit in the NHL. I found zero in the way of SIGCOV (actually of coverage period) for Newman. Cbl62 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Detroit Red Wings players - Wikipedia is not a HockeyDB mirror Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Passes WP:NHOCKEY but fails WP:GNG no SIGCOV. GoldMiner24 Talk 21:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we will delete articles that pass NSPORT then what do we have it for? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORT was intended to provide reasonable assurances to editors that subjects are highly likely to pass WP:GNG. However, NSPORT is not a foolproof guarantee that everyone who passes it will also pass GNG. In cases where no GNG-level coverage can be found, the possibility exists that the subject may still be deleted. Unless some coverage is found (so far, we have found none), Newman appears to be such a case. Cbl62 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we, an encyclopedia, delete articles that pass a guideline when that guideline states: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below and that players are presumed notable if they have played in the National Hockey League, then that SNG is completely worthless and should be marked as "historical" in my opinion. Also, considering we already have an article for all NHL players, why would we want to shrink down, rather than be complete in that area? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldMiner24: @Spiderone: With the expansion now underway, would you take a second look? Cbl62 (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow ok, the article has been significantly improved along with some good references, nice HEY. I now believe he passes GNG, changing my !vote.@Cbl62: GoldMiner24 Talk 14:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To preface this, I am on the deletionist side of things. But I think BeanieFan11 needs to realize that just meeting an SNG does not mean that this person is automatically notable. From NSPORT: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Also, from Q2 of the same page: Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
I understand that BeanieFan11 wants every sports player who has played in the NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA, to get an article on Wikipedia (per their talk page My main goals are to have every NFL player with an article,), but if there are no good sources for lesser known players from the 1930s or 1940s, then we can't do that. Natg 19 (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Q2 feels misguided as it is at odds with the very nature of SNGs - an alternative to GNG as specified at WP:N. BeanieFan11 raises a good point that NSPORTS is a waste of time if articles have to meet GNG anyway. NemesisAT (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back up to WP:NSPORTS#Q1:

They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it

—Bagumba (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets NHOCKEY and 8 games in the top ice hockey league is still 8 games in the top ice hockey league regardless of whether its the 30s, 80s, or today. Wikipedia is not paper. Masterhatch (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still have presented no sources of significant coverage at all. People in fact have counter presented no coverage from the regional newspaper, so it suggests that his hockey career was in fact not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Has anyone ran him through Newspapers.com as "Johnny Newman"? I have Newspaper archive, and was able to this report calling him Johnny Newman as well as "the little Detroit forward" and also this one. GPL93 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPL93: Jackpot! Lots of hits in the Detroit Free Press for hockey player "Johnny Newman". My prior searches were for "John". Cbl62 (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some further hits as well. This quick writeup from the Winnipeg Free Press about his callup to the NHL is not in-depth, but does categorize him as a "star" for the Detroit Olympics and I feel like that does lend towards Newman being notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 400 results for "Johnny Newman" and "hockey" in Canadian papers on Newspapers.com from 1929 to 1940 and more than 150 in Michigan papers from the same time period. Only went through the first few years and picked these out, but perhaps there is some significant coverage among the large amount of passing mentions in these results. Penale52 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets the presumption of notability under WP:NHOCKEY. Sources from almost 100 years ago may be difficult and take a long time to find - even newspapers.com is far from complete - and so the SNG presumption is particularly important and useful for such subjects. There is no time limit as to when additional sources need to be added. If the nominator does not like the presumption under the SNG he should start a RfC to get consensus to revise it. And if the SNG is not good enough, then IAR is reason enough to keep, per BeanieFan11. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets NHOCKEY and appears to meet GNG as well per the sources in archive databases. The article needs expansion, not deletion. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, why haven't you or anyone else expanded it already? An article can only be retained on the sources that actually exist, not on the ones which people speculate might exist. Ravenswing 06:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: per Spiderone. So ... is there any worthwhile content from all these hits that anyone cares to add into the article? Because as of right now, none has been. And if the links posted above are indicative of the quality and depth of the coverage, the subject still fails the GNG with drooping colors: 0+0+0+0+0+0 still equals zero. IAR isn't some sort of trump card that supersedes all other notability criteria, and it would be fatuous to claim that retaining intact a two-sentence substub that hasn't been materially improved in thirteen years is necessary to the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 06:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some detail concerning his first two seasons. He played 11 pro seasons according to HocekyDB. Maybe someone else will jump in and expand further? Cbl62 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes both NHOCKEY and GNG. The coverage of Newman's 11-year pro career (and his junior hockey career before that) is extensive. I've begun expanding the article to incorporate some of that coverage. It will take time but the process is underway. Cbl62 (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, article has newspaper sources now so deletion rationale is invalid. NemesisAT (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Subject is now shown to meet WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY as above in respect of GNG. Agree article in its AfD nomination version was not good enough, and for every flagged 'NSPORT pass' article, efforts should be shown to have been made to match the standards now found at this one to avert deletion. Crowsus (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Top Chess Engine Championship. Policy-based discussion is against keeping. There are strong arguments here that the individual seasons of this chess engine competition are not covered in sufficient detail by independent reliable sources to warrant separate articles. There is however no consensus as regards deletion, redirection or merging. Redirection is a compromise, allowing editors to decide what if anything is worth merging from the history. Sandstein 12:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TCEC Season 21[edit]

TCEC Season 21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to be an article on Wikipedia; it violates WP:GNG and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Most of the sources are from the TCEC wiki run by TCEC. The other sources are from Chessdom, which sponsors TCEC, GM Matthew Sadler, who helped in running TCEC Season 21 by creating the book used in the TCEC SuFi, the author of the Seer engine that participated in TCEC this season and the github of the Stockfish engines that participated in TCEC this season. Furthemore, the source from GM Matthew Sadler is from Youtube and the source from the Seer author is from Imgur, both websites hosting user-generated content and thus violating WP:USERGENERATED. Checking to see if there is any coverage in TCEC Season 21 in reliable secondary sources, the only two results in Google News about Season 21 talk about one specific game from the season, and so really belong in the Notable Games section of main TCEC article rather than here. No reason for this article to exist. Redirecting to the main Top Chess Engine Championship article can also be considered. Paula Bradley (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating theis page because it suffer from the same problems as the article on TCEC Season 21:

TCEC Season 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from even worse problems than the article on TCEC Season 21, as they do not have any sources whatsoever apart from a link to the TCEC archive:

TCEC Season 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep: I found a number of other independent third party sources for TCEC Season 21, which in addition to the two sources on Google News means that the article do not violate WP:GNG and WP:SELFPUBLISH. 96.63.208.23 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just took a look at the sources you added to the article, and the sources are by and large Youtube videos. Youtube videos are not reliable sources, according to WP:RSPYT, unless the video come from some notable and reliable news organisation such as NBC. Most of the other sources added, while coming from chesschest.com, are really just Youtube videos embedded into the article, whose other contents consists solely of the description section of the Youtube video copied word for word into the article, so once again, WP:RSPYT applies, and this article still violates WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:GNG. Paula Bradley (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The situation with the articles on TCEC Season 21 and Season 22 is completely different from the articles on TCEC Season 14 to TCEC Season 20. In those articles, there is enough notability established in the articles, as there is a reference to multiple reliable third party sources, such as Guy Haworth and Nelson Hernandez's article on each TCEC tournament in the ICGA Journal. Matthew Sadler didn't start creating the book for the TCEC Superfinal until TCEC Season 21, so the articles he wrote about the TCEC retrospectives do count as a valid third party source for the TCEC Season 14 to TCEC Season 20 articles. And there is also plenty of news coverage in the previous TCEC seasons, such as this for TCEC Season 15. However, in contrast, there is virtually nothing reliable or noteworthy about TCEC Season 21 or TCEC Season 22 anywhere, and the same could be said about the early TCEC seasons from 10 years ago. No articles about TCEC Season 21 in scholarly journals, or news articles, et cetera. Only two blog posts talking about one game each in TCEC Season 21, which, as I said above, already has a home on the main TCEC article. Paula Bradley (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree about the previous seasons and Matthew Sadler's articles. Matthew Sadler's articles about TCEC are 1. only about the Superfinal, with the Premier Division only mentioned in a few articles in passing, so none of the divisions below the Superfinal are notable, and 2. published either on chessdom.com or on the main tcec-chess.com website, which means that they aren't independent enough sources according to your criteria. Some seasons such as TCEC Season 14 or TCEC Season 19 as a result just aren't notable enough for an article right now, because only one reliable independent secondary source (ICGA Journal) is not really enough to establish notability. It's the same reason why the Arimaa Challenge doesn't have its own article on Wikipedia, but is rather merged into the main article on Arimaa#Arimaa Challenge. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TCEC Season 14 has this reliable independent secondary source [8], so I take back what I said about TCEC Season 14. However, chess24 only has news articles about TCEC season 14 and season 15, so my point still holds for the seasons between TCEC Season 16 and TCEC Season 19. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two articles [9] and [10] mention TCEC Season 16 and TCEC Season 20 in passing, but don't go into any depth about the event itself. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This dissertation also references TCEC season 14, 15, and 16, but doesn't go into much detail about them. [11]. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This research paper [12] references the winners of TCEC seasons 1-7, but only in a footnote, which isn't enough to establish notability for those seasons. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this article in the ICGA Journal: [13], one of the authors of every article about TCEC in the ICGA Journal, Nelson Hernandez, contributes the books for the lower divisions between TCEC season 9 and season 19. This means that if Matthew Sadler's sources from Season 21 aren't independent, then the ICGA Journal articles by Guy Haworth and Nelson Hernandez aren't independent for Season 14 to Season 19 either, and so don't count. Which means that Season 14 to season 19 aren't really notable either. And according to [14] Nelson Hernandez is also involved in TCEC Season 20, so the ICGA Journal article for TCEC Season 20 isn't independent either. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in reality, neither of the self-published Matthew Sadler articles nor the Nelson Hernandez articles on the ICGA Journal are reliable independent secondary sources, and so the notability of all the TCEC season articles is up for question, not just the ones listed for deletion by the OP. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, no evidence of any notability for e.g. the Season 22. Fram (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep Disclaimer, I wrote most of the articles. I lean keep because:
  • Although it's not widely covered in chess media, I know for a fact that many GMs are following the games (in turn because the games feature very high-level chess - computers are already superhuman, and the competition games are run on very strong hardware). Hence previous season articles have directly quoted them [15]. There's more evidence of this from the way TCEC games are sometimes used to illustrate concepts, e.g. in the analysis of one of the games in this article, the author references a game from "TCEC 2019" to show why a particular line doesn't work.
  • I know Guy Haworth and Nelson Hernandez didn't write an article for the most recent season of the TCEC in the ICGA journal because Guy Haworth died recently. Nelson Hernandez is still alive, but he's indicated that he doesn't have chess knowledge (i.e. he's not a strong player); he only maintains an opening database.
  • In the same way I know Matthew Sadler didn't write an article about the Season 21 superfinal because he put all his time into a book on it. There are some sample pages here. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the book so I can't write it into the article.
  • Finally, Season 22 doesn't have any coverage yet for obvious reasons - the top engines haven't played yet. As of time of writing League 3 is ending soon, so there'll be weeks more before the premier division and superfinal.
So I lean keep. I suppose one could delete the articles until the (I'd say inevitable) coverage shows up, but that 1) seems silly and 2) would put a tight deadline on writing things, since I'm pretty sure there's a page view spike during the superfinal.
PS, I'm going to notify WP:CHESS about this AfD.
Banedon (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About the first bullet point:
  • "Although it's not widely covered in chess media, I know for a fact that many GMs are following the games (in turn because the games feature very high-level chess - computers are already superhuman, and the competition games are run on very strong hardware)." Unfortunately per Wikipedia policy, you'll need a reliable source saying that many GMs are following the tournament in season 21 and 22. Right now it's just your word vs the lack of reliable sources in the media.
  • "Hence previous season articles have directly quoted them [16]." That linked sentence needs a source, and it should have a source in this video from chess24 [17], as well as the TCEC Season 17 retrospective by Sadler, both of which I have inserted into the article there.
  • "There's more evidence of this from the way TCEC games are sometimes used to illustrate concepts, e.g. in the analysis of one of the games in this article, the author references a game from "TCEC 2019" to show why a particular line doesn't work." Single games being mentioned in an article don't warrant the creation of individual articles on TCEC seasons, just a particular entry in the Notable games section of the main TCEC article. (or not even that, there are plenty of games used to illustrate chess concepts out there in the world, but there isn't a article on every tournament from which the games are derived from).
  • In addition, if I remember correctly, Magnus Carlsen has mentioned in a stream archive on Youtube that grandmasters are following the games from the International Correspondence Chess Federation closely as well, for the same reason they follow TCEC, yet Wikipedia does not have any articles on individual ICCF seasons/tournaments, because there is no notable coverage of ICCF from reliable third party sources. TCEC in season 21 and season 22 in this case seems to be very similar to the ICCF, so unless more sources are found, the precedent is already set with individual ICCF seasons/tournaments not having their own Wikipedia articles.
About your third bullet point, can somebody with access to The Silicon Road to Chess Improvement confirm that the book talks about season 21? The sample pages do not make any mentions of Season 21 at all.
Your comment as a whole doesn't mention TCEC Seasons 1-4 at all. Without any other further sources for those articles, those seasons are probably still not notable enough to be placed on Wikipedia, even if additional sources are found for Season 21 and 22. Especially since it was Leela Chess Zero's popularity and participation that caused TCEC to become notable enough in the chess community back in season 14, rather than the niche competition in some backwater of the chess world that it was prior to Leela. Paula Bradley (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have any articles on individual ICCF seasons/tournaments, because there is no notable coverage of ICCF from reliable third party sources I don't think so. Wikipedia does not have any articles on individual ICCF seasons/tournaments because nobody has been interested enough to write an article for them, in turn because (I'm pretty confident) the pace is super slow and tournaments take years to finish. I am not going to debate you however, and will let the AfD run its course. Banedon (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add: it looks like Matthew Sadler wrote a section in New in Chess on S21 specifically. See sample pages, page 23. Banedon (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The TCEC S21 Superfinal has been covered by GM Sadler in the New In Chess yearbook, number 141, pages 23-34. I would consider that this qualifies for notability. Skiminki (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Skiminki: Thanks for the source, I've added it to the article. By the way, do you by any chance have a copy of Matthew Sadler's The Silicon Road to Chess Improvement, and if you do, could you confirm User:Banedon's statement above that the book also talks about Season 21? Paula Bradley (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have the book yet (waiting for the Kindle edition), so I asked GM Sadler. He says that S21 was too late to make it in his book. However, his book has games from S20. I can add more detailed references once I have the book. He is also planning to write the TCEC article on S21 soon-ish. The writing is a bit delayed as he's been busy with other things as Banedon notes. What comes to S21 and S22 coverage, he has his Youtube channel accompanying the book with dozens of games covered ( https://www.youtube.com/c/SiliconRoadChess/playlists ). While the channel is not hugely popular--likely because it's quite advanced--it still indicates that the current TCEC seasons have relevance at the GM level. Skiminki (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, well then I don't think The Silicon Road to Chess Improvement could be used as a source for this article, although feel free to add it to the TCEC Season 17, TCEC Season 18, TCEC Season 19, and TCEC Season 20 articles. The sample pages from the book already have example games from the four seasons though. Paula Bradley (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclaimer about potential conflict of interest. Someone suspected this of me, so I probably should clarify. I'm a long-time TCEC follower, chat moderator, and I've provided some technical assistance over the years. I maintain a games archive. I'm not directly involved with the TCEC tournament organization, its decisions, participating engines, opening books, competition events and rules, etc. The reason I was able to get a quick answer from GM Sadler about what's in "Silicon Road" is because he happened to be in the chat. In hindsight, I should have mentioned this earlier. Skiminki (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While I agree that the sourcing on these is weak, WP:SELFPUBLISH includes the following exception, which I believe applies here: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Regardless, computer chess is not a very controversial topic, so I'm not that worried about strictly adhering to the letter of the Verifiability policies. The articles are well-written and informative so I think I would rather err on the side of keeping them for such a borderline case. Nosferattus (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For those who voted to keep, does that vote only pertain to the TCEC Season 21, or to TCEC Season 21 and TCEC Season 22 articles, or does the vote also pertain to TCEC Season 1, TCEC Season 2, TCEC Season 3, and TCEC Season 4 as well? Because those articles are even worse with citations and notability: apart from a one line sentence in the beginning of the articles, the articles on the first four seasons are just a list of tables with one source/external link linking to the TCEC archive. There might be articles about TCEC Season 21 and Season 22 by Matthew Sadler, New in Chess, the ICGA Journal, et cetera in the future, but has anybody written articles or produced content on Youtube about TCEC Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, and Season 4? Consensus might be building that TCEC Season 21 and TCEC Season 22 is borderline notable enough to be kept on Wikipedia, but no consensus has yet been developed for TCEC Season 1, TCEC Season 2, TCEC Season 3, and TCEC Season 4. Paula Bradley (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My vote to keep was intended for Season 21 and onwards. While I do agree that S22 doesn't yet have great sourcing, it is likely to get reliable sources as the season progresses. With the on-going season, I would rather take the bit more conservative approach and only consider it for deletion once the season is over. And the same with future seasons. Skiminki (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What comes to the early seasons, I have no strong opinion. If the pages must go, then I would suggest merging them as "TCEC early seasons" or so. The first article by Guy Haworth and Nelson Hernandez is for Season 10. The earliest Chessdom article is for Season 6. There exists annotated games by chess masters in the PGN format starting from Season 1, and the first GM-annotated game that I know of is from Season 2. However, these annotated PGNs are currently not publicly available as far as I know. I am planning to add these games in the official TCEC games archive at some point to preserve history. (The long-term archive is here: https://github.com/TCEC-Chess/tcecgames ) Skiminki (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So some seasons are notable because a mainstream publication mentioned them, but others are not? All or nothing I say. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. GNG not met and no evidence the individual seasons are notable. The extensive lists of statistics have no place on Wikipedia; we are not a computer chess almanac. The separate season articles should be summarized up into a single article. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into a single article ("TCEC Seasons" or some such). There just aren't the sources available for each "season" at this time. Also would be okay with an article on 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 or something similar). Hobit (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into TCEC seasons and redirect. Expand them back when sources become available. On the one hand, this is the highest level of engine chess (a cross-section of computing, artificial intelligence, mathematics and chess), and it is non-profit/open source. On the other hand, because of undisclosed COI editors adding first hand accounts of literally EVERYTHING into these articles, they contain or constitute in their almost entirety, violations of our core content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV). Much of the content contained in these articles arguably are NOTWEBHOST violations. I would advise TCEC/TCEC supporters to copy the current versions of these articles into their own wiki, so no information is lost (information, I believe, is accurate but entirely unverifiable) and keep on Wikipedia only summaries supported by independent reliable sources. Not only is the current level of detail unverifiable, but it is likely to remain unverifiable in the future, as reliable secondary sources are unlikely to write or be able to write about these seasons in so much detail. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Top Chess Engine Championship: Any useful information should be added to the main page then redirect. Gusfriend (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. None of the articles have reliable independent secondary sources. Since Matthew Sadler's seems to be involved in TCEC, his article in the New In Chess Yearbook, which some people mentioned above, isn't a reliable independent secondary source either. Even if Sadler's article in the New In Chess Yearbook is a reliable independent secondary source, it only explains the TCEC season 21 superfinal, so everything apart from the TCEC season 21 superfinal would still have to be deleted for not being properly sourced. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per Stifle. ––FormalDude talk 13:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelina Olivarez[edit]

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

User:Scope creep sent this to draft space but it was edit warred back by the creator without any improvement. It is a stats article masquerading as a sportsperson biography and the subject fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG anyway! Following a recent RfC, Fed Cup was removed from NTENNIS so her 3 matches in the Fed Cup cannot be used as a keep argument on its own.

I've searched extensively for sources and can't find anything to justify an article. Even this Filipino search yielded nothing. I found a passing mention in The Manila Times but that won't be enough. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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. North America1000 03:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Ramsden, 9th Baronet[edit]

Sir John Ramsden, 9th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

English nobleman who fails WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO.

Peerage websites are unreliable sources per WP:RSN/P (see entry) and Burke's peerage is only reliable for genealogy; the London Gazette is a primary source related to his diplomatic father's nomination (only a passing mention); Who's Who UK was downgraded to generally unreliable at RSP last week, and the inclusion of peers is automatic; the Huddersfield Local History Society does not cover the subject at all; and Cryptome only gives a passing mention (and is hardly reliable). Pilaz (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-04 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 03:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megha Daw[edit]

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

The actress has only one significant role in Pilu (TV series) (WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles), rest of them are reality show appearances where Daw was a participant. Also lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural keep – not in article space. Favonian (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nafiu Bala Rabiu[edit]

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

not notable AlexandruAAlu (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 13:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Heritage Zimbabwe[edit]

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

Outdated recreation of an earlier removed article. Looks like promo. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT The Banner talk 10:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to 2016 Pathankot attack. ✗plicit 12:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gursewak Singh[edit]

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

While tragic, not enough in-depth coverage of him to show that he meets WP:GNG. Case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 TT me 11:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as an instance of WP:BIO1E -Ljleppan (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per both above, I can't find anything on him aside from the attack, though it's a common name so something might be hidden in the depths. Garud Commando Force#Gallantry awards might be a good place for some of the content that doesn't belong in the main article on the attack, though I haven't added it myself because I am not entirely clear if the Shaurya Chakra qualifies a "gallantry award". Rusalkii (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Imperatori[edit]

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

Already prod'ed by Liz, with rationale Non-notable artist, moved prematurely from Draft space, fails WP:ARTIST. Given that there's a blatant cluster (Mach280, Maxxinelli01, Genefaund, and Enci.2021) editing related articles (Roberta Imperatori, Michela Ramadori, Paolo Salvati, and Cento Pittori via Margutta), I think it's a clear cut case of UPE. Vituzzu (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enciclopedia d'arte italiana[edit]

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

Given sources prove its mere existence, without any clue about notability, also failing WP:NBOOK. Given that at least two major contributors (Mach280 and Genefaund) are proven sockpuppets, and there's a blatant cluster (Mach280, Maxxinelli01, Genefaund, and Enci.2021) editing related articles (Roberta Imperatori, Michela Ramadori, Paolo Salvati, and Cento Pittori via Margutta), I think it's a clear cut case of UPE. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I devoted time to the page on the Italian Art Encyclopedia Enciclopedia d'arte italiana to cite a ten-year widespread and verifiable publication--Mach280 (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading, the work of others in the community if I hope done well, why does it have to be negative?--Mach280 (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A ton of citations in GNews, all in Italian of course, I can't comment on which are valid. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A ton? I see 16, quite trivial. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a sector volume, distributed in dedicated places.--Mach280 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Tate Library Catalogue.,[reply]

Kunsthaus Zürich Bibliothek.

Delete - WP:PROMO Reading the site's "about us" page it states "Enciclopedia’s purpose is to gather artists, artists’ association, art galleries and art critics to create a national cooperation network to better promote the associated artists by its web Portal". Most artist profiles contain contact information for the artist. The site is promotional and the article promotes the site. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry, let me explain well, publishers work to sell their product and get funded, so they promote ... should we delete them all from wikipedia? Instead we use the parameter of notoriety and history to tell them about them. The Enciclopedia d'Arte Italiana is an association that has been publishing a General Catalog on Italian art for a long time.--Mach280 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most publishers make money by selling their books to interested readers. There is a class of publishers that make money by selling books to their authors. We call that the vanity press and generally consider them unreliable sources. The subject of this article seems to be in that category. ... should we delete them all from wikipedia? Yes, if the article is used to promote their business, we should. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Vexations (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and while the article claims that "Entries are edited by a scientific technical committee", we know that artists pay to be listed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_361#Enciclopedia_d%27arte_italiana Vexations (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct, Encyclopedia of Italian Art was born as an association, as an association it does not receive state funding, and is self-supporting. Precisely for this reason, the artists who want to associate ask to be evaluated. Through a technical committee, the requests are examined, and they do not take all those who propose themselves. Then they publish a general catalog for over ten years, widespread and very authoritative. In Italy, the Cento Pittori via Margutta are also an association of historical artists, the associates pay a membership fee, and exhibit from 1970 to today. This doesn't mean they take everyone, they all have an art committee. The Quadriennale di Roma is financed by the state and by private individuals ... so they too could take whoever they want based on the private knowledge of those who finance? But really? On wikipedia, soccer players who are paid to do their job unite and maybe after unsuccessful seasons they stay on wikis as sportsmen.... and here are the artistic organizations we are talking about, which have been publishing works for years, do we underestimate them because they finance themselves? Honestly it doesn't work with this parameter, we lose value.--Mach280 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know if @Mach280 is editing on behalf of the Enciclopedia d'Arte Italiana, or any of the other subjects he has written about. If he is, disclosure of a conflict of interest is may be required by the Terms of Use. Refer to the section on Paid contributions without disclosure. Vexations (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, i have read now, i declare that the topics covered are voluntary. I had written the article on this publication to quote a work of art that i enjoyed reading in the library. I verified it was a publication that had cultural diffusion over time. Thanks--Mach280 (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's true that this is a volume of self-promotion for artists, which is made clear here (payment of "joining" decides number of characters you get). I don't think that in itself would be a reason to delete the article. The problem is that there are no independent sources about the encyclopedia. The ones listed here are the site of the encyclopedia itself, an exhibit of artists sponsored by the encyclopedia, and links to entries in library catalogs. The gotcha with that latter is that the site (linked above) says that it sends copies to libraries for free. So library holdings are not a good measure. Lamona (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the explanations given above, I'm for "Delete". Paying to be in an association and the size of the payment dictates the size of the article you get isn't terribly independent. Not saying the project isn't worthwhile, but we'd need third-party sources unrelated to it. Perhaps some scholarly journals would have information on the subject, but I can't read Italian so can't comment on that aspect. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, I'm inserting some sources, one of this comes from the digital archive of the National Gallery of Modern Art in Rome. I add that on the encycloedia website it is clearly written that they do not accept members unless evaluated by an artistic commission. Nobody enters the association unless deemed suitable. I had evaluated the publication as relevant because it was written by many well-known critics, also distributed abroad, for more than ten years. For this I ask you more time to insert other verifiable sources.--Mach280 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Scamps[edit]

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

no inherent notability from participating in a junior championship, WP:SIGCOV not demonstrated for her candidacy Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No where near sufficient yet to support GNG. At best TOOSOON. If candidacy is successful then another story ... Aoziwe (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable neither as an athlete nor as a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but the World Junior championships are not a level of athletics that secures automatic passage of WP:ATHLETE either. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for an article to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record an RfC related to NSPORTS determined that NSPORTS is just a guideline, articles still need to pass GNG even if they fall under NSPORTS, it is just a guide as to which articles are likely to pass, it does not function the same way as NPOL.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the reasons stated: fails WP:NPOL (not yet elected). Fails WP:ATHLETE. No SIGCOV (yet). Revisit post election. Cabrils (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NATHLETE or WP:NPOL. The trifecta. Onel5969 TT me 16:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Procedural keep – not in article space. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:5dariya News[edit]

Draft:5dariya News (edit | [[Talk:Draft:5dariya News|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

written like advertisement and no independent articles found AlexandruAAlu (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kolo Kapanui[edit]

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

Mr Kapanui's article claims that he's a sportsman, but the references aren't about that. On reading the sources we learn that he's actually notable for lewd behaviour, to whit, urinating in a public place. I put it to you that on BLP grounds it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to host this article. —S Marshall T/C 09:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 09:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Hawaii. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find sports databases but no RIS to suggest this subject is notable. Mccapra (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one passing article more about his lewd behavior is not enough to show notability. He clearly does not pass any reasonable guideline for notability of American football players. He never even played in 1 professional game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no professional career to speak of, and I cannot find any references to his college career. Subject appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:IMPACT, and any other notability measure I can think of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable football player with only sparse, routine coverage. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON as a training camp only player. Frank Anchor 15:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing really in terms of significant coverage and his professional career is not particularly notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this appears to be SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • interesting... let's be aware of possibly any more and assess. I don't want to throw it out without taking the time to do it right.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As a POVFORK I have discarded all the spas Spartaz Humbug! 05:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal[edit]

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

Though sourced, this article is heavily biased and opinionated. Much of the information it includes is already covered in the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix article in a much more nuanced, informative and neutral fashion. Not only is this article heavily skewed in its bias, it is also written in a largely unacademic manner, reading more like a fan wiki than a properly structured Wikipedia article. Democfest (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Motorsport, and United Arab Emirates. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I smell a good case for WP:TNT deletion. This topic is obviously notable (and also needs a title that conforms to WP:TONE, as this one doesn't). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    hmm... for some reason I cant seem to change the title to "Abu Dhabi Last Lap Controversy".
    Anyone knows the trick to change the title? Would be much appreciated.
    Cheers and kind regards,
    Guru Professor Guru (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. The first line itself is a prelude of the entire article: simply a heavily biased, borderline-vandalistic column on something that is already covered in sufficient detail at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Stacked with pointless sources to make it look like something it isn't. Can't help but laugh at the title... MSport1005 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, the article outlines one of Formula 1 scandals in a growing list of Sporting scandals and F1 controversies
    (see Spygate, Rascassegate or the 2007 Finance scandal),
    List of sporting scandals
    and
    List of sporting scandals#Motorsport and Racing scandals
    The event is notable. And deserves its own article similar to the 20007 "spygate" scandal or the 2008 "crashgate" scandal. If I remember correctly those articles weren`t deleted, therefore I see no reason why this article should be deleted.
    The article is well researched and written objective and neutral.
    If there are specific areas of concern, regarding the title for example, please let me know. And I shall amend the title to "Controversy"
    I am happy to take any suggestions on board.
    Kind regards,
    Guru Professor Guru
    Professor Guru (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Professor Guru: For starters, the lead needs to be entriely re-written, the reactions section needs to be purged (for example, Kane's opinion. He confessed he doesn't know anything about Formula One, and this is made clear by the fact that his tweet doesn't even adress the basis for the contraversy. His critism would have applied even if all cars were allowed to unlap themselves (meaning no contravesy). His complaint is about the safety car rules, not the decision process) SSSB (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    much appreciated... for the feedback
    1. I tried to change the headline... I will research how to change it.
    2. Regarding Kanes tweet. Nothing that happened in that last lap was part of "safety car rules". At the time Kane thought it was part of safety car rules what the race director did. He thought that like 103 Million TV viewers, because that was how it was explained to him. It turned out that the decision making wasnt part of any regulation/safety car rules. It was something the race director invented out of thin air (which is why he was fired).
    3. but besides that... the race showed that people didnt really need to know much about Formula One to know that allowing 2-3 driver to race, while other drivers weren`t even able restart the race (or only allowing some others to race half a lap) was... how shall I put it... quite strange (to put it mildly).
    4. on that note... let me address the accusation of "fan wiki-sm" someone mentioned. the fact that these events have never happened in 70 years of Formula 1 history and the fact the race director was fired from his job last week, points in the direction that something terribly wrong in that race, and the "tone" of the article reflects that in a neutral and objective manner... the article needed to explain that.
    5. I`m not sure there is any (more than whats written) even more neutral way of saying that a referee invented new racing rules 1 lap before the end of a race, or saying someone got fired for making up new rules at the end of a historic race.
    6. Formula One fans deserve to get an encyclopedic summary of what took place.
    7. Your sincerely... Guru
    Professor Guru (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to go into further details here, as it is not the appropriate venue. By all means comment/ask for advice on Talk:The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal (which I am watching) SSSB (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is not the "encyclopedic summary" "Formula One fans deserve". Because it isn't encyclopedic. SSSB (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think an article on this topic should be written since (as others have pointed out) there are relevent articles written on the 2007 "spygate" and 2008 "crashgate" controversies, and this one is arguably the biggest since those two. However the article as it is written right now is terrible in countless different ways. In my opinion the question is whether this should be deleted so it can be written again from ground up, or if it is salvageable through heavy (very heavy) editing. EvanM2015 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/draftify whilst it has been raised that a dedicated article to the contraversy could be written, this is so biased that it would be much quicker to simply delete this and start from scratch if we ever want to a neutral attempt at a dedicated article. At the very least it needs to be draftified so that we can salvage some neutrality from it. But, it is completely unsuitable for the mainspace in its current form. SSSB (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and Blow up per SSSB's comments above, I 100% agree. This article needs to be blown up and re-written. SPF121188 (tell me!) (contribs) 18:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I agree with MSport1005 that this is borderline vandalism. This is an incredibly poorly-written opinion piece and one of the least neutral articles I've ever come across. I was going to tag it for cleanup but going through the Twinkle options far too many were applicable to actually be helpful. Perhaps an article could be written (with an objective title, such as "2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix controversy") but this article has, in my opinion, no usable content that could be put towards it. No attempt has been made to cover this incident in an objective manner or to include worldwide views. I would suggesting deleting this article, and then splitting content from the race report to a new title if that is desired. I personally don't see what additional content could be added that is not in the race report already, so I would suggest the creation of appropriate redirects to the relevant sections there. I will also note that many of the diagrams on this page are also copyright violations and also need to be deleted. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it seems like ot is a clear well sourced page on a controversial topic. People trting to get it deleted seem to have an agenda to cover up the truth like fia have been trying on this topic. Leave as is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.55.12 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC) — 194.151.55.12 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well sourced doesn't make it neutral, and that's the problem here. SSSB (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't blowup to rebuild, neutral on necessity of split - since I made my last comment significant changes have been made and I no longer believe that "blowing up and rebuilding" would be appropiate. Yes, this article is a long way from perfect, but it is also significantly better. I therefore now believe that the best way to deal with this is to trim down this article, copyedit it into an encylopedic tone, and re-publish under a more neutral name. Unless of course we decide not to split this content from 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, an issue on which I am currently neutral. SSSB (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The change is so great that I would argue that previous voters should re-consider. SSSB (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree completely. Recent changes have not given me any faith that this article is salvageable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my reasoning: this article is completely (and, in my view, irrepairably) riddled with original research and takes a highly, highly partisan stance. It uses questionable sources throughout to present its own narrative rather than any balanced or global view. Of course any article can be completely re-written, but these changes have not given me any optimism for finding usable content here. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi this is still relevant and highly important. The documents t from the fia investigation will also form part of formula one fans deciding as to whether or not they drop the sport as it becomes entertainment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.14.229 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC) — 92.12.14.229 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment this is an unnecessary article. The content is written from an incredibly biased perspective which makes it useless. If more objective statements were used this could be a useful article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.230.153 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC) — 128.252.230.153 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not any bias within the article. Any and all information presented is relevant to the topic, and backed up with sources. It is important to recognize topics such as this to provide content to newer fans of Formula 1 and why people continue to discuss the events of The 2021 Abu Dhabi Gran Prix as it is a highly controversial topic within the sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:400:A2E0:71B7:33C:17E1:9DD9 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC) — 2601:145:400:A2E0:71B7:33C:17E1:9DD9 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article presents facts and relevant data. DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.114.177 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC) — 66.182.114.177 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not blowup to rebuild, do not split - This article looks fine to me and the issue is notable enough to warrant an article. It's too big to keep inside the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix so it should be split like Spygate and Crashgate articles are. Really, the only thing I question here is the attempts of some editors to get speedy deletion. Seems suspicious. 46.12.102.22 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC) — 46.12.102.22 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'm concerned with the sudden influx of IP users. All comments from IP users in this AfD are the first and only contributions by those users. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious WP:POVFORK of 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix which poses some fairly clear WP:COPYVIO concerns. Reads more like the script for a Youtube video than an encyclopaedia entry. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should not be deleted. It is factually correct and deserves its place in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.90.5 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC) — 77.96.90.5 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not blowup to rebuild, do not merge - I agree with the above argument: "This article looks fine to me and the issue is notable enough to warrant an article. It's too big to keep inside the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix so it should be split like Spygate and Crashgate articles are. Really, the only thing I question here is the attempts of some editors to get speedy deletion. Seems suspicious." Simanos (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Simanos:, may I be forgiven if I find it a little suspicious that an account that had not edited in 2 years before this !vote, with no prior history of editing in the motorsports topic area, or at XfD's, has come here to literally parrot a 1-edit IP? Is it fair to ponder out loud the possibilities of this account being compromised? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 06:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgive you. I was too lazy to write more on my own and besides it expressed most of my thoughts. I just corrected one bit (do not merge). I didn't think I'd have to prove who I am, I just logged in cause another person said not to acknowledge opinion of IPs. I made changes in Wikipedia without login for a long time (rare changes), changing computers sometimes you lose passwords and are too lazy to get them back by email. So I did it just for this thing. Because of what the other guy who wants to delete this article said. And now you, another person who wants to delete, finds another reason to discredit me, a proponent of this article. Suspicious, no? Not to mention all the "Delete" people that popped up below. It's like someone is doing what you call it here, CANVASSING? Right? Simanos (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is highly suspicious that four IP users all make their first edit to Wikipedia on this AfD within the space of an hour. I did not say their opinions should be disregarded, but that it is highly likely these !votes are illegitimate, but the weight placed on their !votes is for the closing administrator to decide. Every logged in user here has an established history of editing Wikipedia so are clearly legitimate !voters, but if you can find evidence of canvassing (which you won't), you could take it to an administrator's attention at ANI. I will also take from your message that you have now !voted twice in this discussion, so I will strike your original vote. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; do not draftify/recreate/et al. - Subject is already covered sufficiently at the parent article as nominator points out. It is also not too big for the parent article; coverage of the race was mostly dominated in the reliable sources by the controversy therefore a properly WEIGHTed article should reflect this. This incredibly poorly written POVFORK was not needed; anyone reading the facts should be able to interpret that Hamilton got screwed without needing to vandalize Wikipedia to make the POINT. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 06:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I am aware I have already !voted, but I would like to make it clear to the closing adminstrator that although the article has changed substantially since its nomination, I have followed it closely and my !vote has not changed. Although I believe the topic could be covered independently, I am leaning more towards GhostOfDanGurney's view that the race report already adequately covers this controversy, and splitting would be unnecesary. I will also express my continued concern that all IP !voters here have had no previous activity on Wikipedia, and it seems fairly likely these are not legitimate !votes. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per all issues raised above, this article is not needed at all. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There definitely needs to be an article on this topic and considering articles have been written and kept for other major F1 controversies such as 2007 spygate and 2008 crashgate I don't see why this one is any different and warrents removal. I think deletion requires a strong argument that this is a less significant controversy, and considering it led to the removal of a race director I don't think this is the case. The original article was very poorly written and while I originally favoured blowing up and starting again but since then the article has been heavily re-written and is reaching an acceptable state. It certainly needs more work still though. EvanM2015 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF because this constant bringing up of spygate and crashgate has no bearing on whether this content fork should be kept or not. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth explaining why those cases of WP:OTHERSTUFF aren't particularly relevant. In the case of Renault Formula One crash controversy the controversy occurred around a year after the event it centred on, which means that coverage of the race and coverage of the controversy by reliable sources was largely separate and distinct from one another. In the case of 2007 Formula One espionage controversy, the controversy played out over around half a season, and thus isn't specifically connected to any one race. A closer parallel here would be 2005 United States Grand Prix, which does not need a separate article titled "2005 United States Grand Prix tyre failures". I think the strength of emotions that many feel about this subject may be leading them to feel that having an effective duplicate article covering it is a further vindication of their feelings, or (particularly in the case of new/IP editors) they may not be aware of the existence of the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HumanBodyPiloter5: that doesn't cover why the espionage controversy isn't relevant. The espionage case wasn't specific to a race, but it is specific to 2007 Formula One World Championship. But espionage controversy still isn't relevant because it isn't the safety car controversy that this article discusses. SSSB (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it does. The point is that Spygate was a complex event and controversy that extended beyond the bounds of a single sporting season. It didn't happen within the confines of a single event or a single season, it took until 2009 for all legal proceedings to be concluded. This, on the other hand, can be (and already is) neatly and comprehensively contained within the race report. Could it be split? Yes. Is that strictly necessary? No. But I think GhostOfDanGurney and HumanBodyPiloter5 have made quite a fair point that this controversy isn't comparable to those. This is a05 US GP situation where the controversy can be neatly contained, not a Crashgate or Spygate where it spills into messy legal proceedings that can't be contained within a single race or season. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a05 US GP situation where the controversy can be neatly contained, not a Crashgate or Spygate where it spills into messy legal proceedings that can't be contained within a single race or season. - this is just an opinion, as is This is a05 US GP situation where the controversy can be neatly contained, not a Crashgate or Spygate where it spills into messy legal proceedings that can't be contained within a single race or season.

    Calling 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix messy would be a massive understatement. The question here is whether, following a clean-up of 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, will is be suffiently "unmessy" to not warrant a WP:SPLIT. Frankly, that would be WP:OR at this point.

    More importantly, you clearly haven't read WP:OTHERSTUFF because if you had you'd realise that your last two comments (analising Renault Formula One crash controversy, 2007 Formula One espionage controversy and 2005 United States Grand Prix) will have no bearing on the outcome of this AfD, as you are discussing articles which aren't this one (WP:OTHERSTUFF works both ways). SSSB (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • OTHERSTUFF is deletion advice, not advice on splitting. Everything we share is ultimately opinion, and in my opinion this parallels another similar situation (the 05 US GP) in being a controversy that is contained within a single race and can be covered appropriately there. It is distinct from larger, messier controversies that did not relate to single events and thus could not be appropriately covered in a race or season report. If you like, I can make similar arguments without using examples to illustrate my point. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By arguing against a split that has already taken place you are arguing for a deletion. Even if you weren't, WP:OTHERSTUFF has an equivalent that focuses on non-AfD (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#What about other content?) If you like, I can make similar arguments without using examples to illustrate my point. - that's would you should have done. It's too late now.

    Also, you are incorrect, as crashgate related to a single event, and spygate to a single season, even if legal proceedings and investigations lasted years. Your argument against a split sounds as if you oppose a split because of the time frame of the relevant events (i.e. the investigation didn't last two years, or the contraversy only emerged one year later) and I don't see that as grounds for splitting, or not splitting. Rather, we should split things based on article length (which is why your examples are/aren't split), and we must make an assessment on whether a split is appropriate. Based on the length of the relevant sections at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, I'm not sure. It also depends on how much of this article, if any (from what I've seen, not much), could be merged to 2021 Abu dhabi GP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs) 12:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe any of what you've said makes my argument invalid, but putting aside our disagreement on my somewhat clumsy delivery: the point remains that the controversy itself can be covered within the race report. It is not substantial enough in size or scope to warrant standalone coverage. As you've just said yourself, there is minimal content here that could be salvaged. The article can't justify its independent existence, and hence should be deleted. 5225C (talk • contributions) 14:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it made the arguement invalid, I just said that your examples didn't contribute to the argument. You say that the article can be covered within the race report, the question is whether it should. You are certain, I am less so. I think the length of 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix could warrant to split. We'll just have to agree to disagree about the degree of the validity of a split. SSSB (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the comparison to the 2005 United States Grand Prix tyre failures. That was a single event, that made some people unhappy (including me) and was soon put out of the public eye. A comparable event is the Spa 2021 race that was half counted, with 3 laps only behind safety car. That controversy was also quite jarring, but public opinion moved on quickly. On the contrary, the Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal was something huge, rules were bent, people were talking about it for months. It's still the most talked about subject and we're starting the next season. People talk about it more than the new cars reveals and first trials. And that's because there's news about it every day, tapes released or re-released, FIA investigations, rules changes made with references to the controversy. It is simply too notable to delete here and if you put ALL this info in the main race article it will become a big potato. A disservice to both articles. Simanos (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is that there isn't any content here that would add additional value to the race report. This duplicates the scope of this article so that it can present a narrative of events which was originally borderline vandalism and is now at least non-neutral. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – POV fork which is completely surplus to 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Sceptre (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and we're good. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article appears to have been started with a very strong sensationalist, non-encyclopaedic perspective, and it's still poorly written and way too detailed (eg, the endless list of of quotes and opinions under Aftermath). We have the GP article and all of this can and should be handled there. JG66 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a NPOV WP:FORK of 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the improvements made since the AfD was opened, this fork of the original article still contains excessive details, including quoting anybody who said anything about the race (I might be hyperbolical there, but only slightly). 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix covers the same incident in properly encyclopedic fashion and is not so long that it needs to be split. This article should be deleted as a duplication of an existing article. Schazjmd (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stunt (botany)[edit]

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

This article has been unedited for 3 years and no sources since 17 December 2009 (about 12 years) since it was tagged by SmackBot. Vitaium (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also this list of topics on ScienceDirect [25] CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the name could be better, perhaps Stunted plant (botany), Plant stunting (botany) or something similar CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article now has 3 sources. @Vitaium: you know there are easier ways to request sources for articles. Also, three years without an edit is not that bad. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a charming little article that describes a distinct and notable phenomenon. It does need a little care, yes, but I think I'll add it to my personal to-do list to help make it more dapper. InfamousArgyle (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alanoud Production[edit]

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

Poorly-referenced promo stub about a non-notable business. The three sources all appear less than WP:RS, and one at most provides sigcov of the company itself, as opposed to its founder. Search finds nothing of substance, either. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails NCORP as there are lack any in depth coverage about the firm. Cirton (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only source that discusses the company in depth is this one, and I'm very skeptical that it's genuinely independent: it describes the subject in florid terms and suspiciously lacks a byline. The remaining sources do not provide the company significant coverage since they only mention it in passing while discussing something else. I see that several new sources have been added since the nomination, but they suffer from the same flaw: a lack of significant coverage of the company itself. My searches did not identify any NCORP-qualifying coverage either. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and NCORP. Ginbopewz (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Wilkinson[edit]

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

Article appears to be about a minor illustrator. Little to no coverage of this illustrator in any sources. Fails WP:BIO. Lkb335 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SNOW keep and restore. Pretty clear here. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Armenia[edit]

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

Road signs in Azerbaijan & Road signs in Bangladesh were recently prodded under WP:NOTGALLERY, and deleted. I started to Prod others, but was objected to. I will be WP:BUNDLE-ing this AfD in a minute, please excuse me if it takes a little bit, I'm new to AfD Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of discussions sorry its long I'm bundling this
*Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]Same as main article, WP:NOTGALLERY, I mean its the same as above:

Road signs in Brunei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Cambodia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Kazakhstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Kyrgyzstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Laos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Mongolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in the United Arab Emirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Uzbekistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road signs in Vietnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
300 what?

(Captioned: "Distance")

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 12:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aristopharma[edit]

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

The references do not show the subject meets the notability criteria for companies. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources for notability. First and third references are press releases, second is from company's own web site.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an organization/company therefore WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 16:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. While a simple hatcount of !votes might indicate a "keep", several editors either did not make policy-based arguments in support of their view or made arguments that the extent of sourcing was unclear with respect to passing WP:NCORP. In the absence of a consensus on the state of sources presented, there is no consensus to keep nor delete. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GomSelMash[edit]

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

Non-notable company, no RS, all signs of undisclosed paid editing. Mikekohan (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deletion nomination is like a stupid joke. Maybe it's better to remove Mikekohan from Wikipedia?Ilyadante (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadan[reply]
    • This is the largest plant in the whole region. It's very funny to hear that nearlyevil665 didn't find anything about him, and Mikekohan couldn't think of anything better than to say that he doesn't know such a company and that the article is paid for. It's kind of surreal.Ilyadante (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)ilydadan[reply]
  • Comment: Ilyadante, the article's creator, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, as the article has non-trivial contributions from others (and is already listed here), I removed the G5 tag. This does not mean I don't think it should be deleted. As a technically INVOLVED user I will defer to the judgments of others. ChromaNebula (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if we can come to WP:ORG/CORP consensus rather than G5 since it doesn't seem clear cut enough to be deleted via that route
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: with both the fact that the AFD nom was the user's first edit ever, and the blocking of the first responder, it has the markings of a trainwreck. However I once again ask: Gomel is the second largest city in Belarus, and Gomselmash is the only article about a business currently in Category:Gomel. Should Wikipedia rather have 0 articles about businesses in this city? Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that heads up, I've tagged the sock. Star Mississippi 21:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really understand arguing keeping the article just because it happens to be the only business with a functional Wikipedia page in a certain given city. Since when is that a viable substitute for actual notability as per WP:NORG? Perhaps the better alternative is to create an article about a company based in Gomel satisfying WP:NORG, which I'm sure there are plenty of. nearlyevil665 07:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another article, or 10, or 20, would be ideal! My notion is that Gomselmash is indeed one of the companies in Gomel satisfying NORG, but since I comprehend no Slavic languages, let alone the Cyrillic alphabet, I admit that it's based on more circumstantial "evidence". Namely the fact that Gomselmash sponsored the city's football team for a long time, which in turn caused me to be familiar with it, a person who lives miles and miles away. How many other companies from Belarus, Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine etc. have foreigners heard about? Not many, if any at all. So again, I personally can't present any actual sources about Gomselmash, but the nominator has not shown any sign of digging for sources either, nor has anyone else conducted a source analysis. The closest we have come is the discredited/blocked user mentioning some existing sources at various Slavic-language Wikipedias, sources not challenged by anyone yet. Claims of "no sources" are no better than WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Geschichte (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          For what it's worth, I've conducted a WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability, and found nothing beyond routine business operation reporting. The sources in the Russian version of the article are all primary sources but one, which is a piece "Lukashenko denying the possibility of selling Gomselmash", which has no significant coverage of the subject, instead offering various quotes on why the privatization of state-owned property is a bad idea. The Belarussian article only has one primary source as a reference. I'd love to hear any countering arguments based on WP:NORG qualifying sources and I'd gladly reconsider my vote if presented with such. nearlyevil665 19:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Geschichte's arguments, and from a inclusionist's perspective. This is not a WP:BLP article where sources must verify no matter what. Perhaps the article could be tagged to add English sources and/or to verify existing references — DaxServer (t · c) 12:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the Russian page cites this article, in which Lukashenko's decision not to sell the company was apparently notable enough to make the news outside of the country. The sources of the Belorussian article are mostly the company's own website, but there is a fair bit of coverage in a couple Belorussian newspapers. Individually it is all routine but there does seem to be a good volume of it, and it indicate that the company is a significant player in its region. I don't have the time right now to look for further sources, but I will try to come back to this later and see if I can find anything else in Russian. Rusalkii (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheyla Hershey[edit]

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

I PROD'd this article but found it had already been PROD'd and deleted before but was eventually recreated. My PROD rationale was "Non-notable actress, sources cover her health issues with breast implants, not her career. At best, a cautionary tale about extreme breast surgery."

AFDs nominations require more than a PROD rationale does so I'll just say that Hershey doesn't meet WP:NACTOR standards. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Marx[edit]

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

Local councillors are not presumptively notable under WP:NPOL, and my WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage sufficient for Marx to pass the GNG. (NPP action) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of open-access projects[edit]

Prior AfD discussions for this article:
List of open-access projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CHIMERA duplicating more specific lists (e.g., List of OA journals, etc.); could become an Outline of open access instead. fgnievinski (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also full of redlinks, and presumably attracts promotional content. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given above; furthermore, as open-access becomes more and more common, this list will become increasingly impossible to maintain, to less and less benefit to readers. This is the sort of thing that is much better served by categories. -- asilvering (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 11:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geoscience e-Journals[edit]

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

nonnotable defunct directory fgnievinski (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of county routes in Onondaga County, New York. The clear consensus is a redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 08:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was redirected to List of county routes in Onondaga County, New York for 10 years until a few days ago when it was unceremoniously reverted back to a standalone article. A past discussion Talk:County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)/GA2 and several other discussions [28] as well as WP:USRD/NT have concluded that county roads are not notable.

Moreover, this route has no route markers and there are also filler statements such as the fact that only one county route in Onondaga County is signed, the routes are not usually marked on maps, so an exact date for the route's inception is unknown. Rschen7754 03:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rschen7754 03:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect—the subject is not notable for a stand-alone article, but it could be a valid search term useful to point readers to the list article. Imzadi 1979 → 04:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’This AFD is not necessary’’’ The article needs to be merged per previous consensus decision. Redirect without merging anything, as was done despite merge decision, was wrong. After my attention was called to the old AFD by a new edit there, i noted merge had not been done, and restored article with note in edit summary at least, that merge not redirect makes sense. Please close this new AFD as an administrative matter, and either a) implement a decent merge or b) post proper “merger implementation needed” type notice on the article per instructions for closing AFDs. (Note I supported Keeping the article in original AFD, but agree with later decision to merge to an appropriate target.) Doncram (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we merge the part where we say that we don't know when the route was built? --Rschen7754 04:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My overall point (and the reason I started the AFD) - there is too much fluff in the article that is really not worth merging. --Rschen7754 19:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I interpret Rschen7754's overall point as to cause grief to me and/or drama in general. The AFD was opened by them as if I or others had asserted the County Route article should stand as it is. Having a new argument about that would be great fun, I suppose they thought, allowing them to relive their glory of being party to the 2012 decision to get rid of the article by merger. I objected to the AFD, and later I closed it, and they opened a deletion review proceeding which I presume was for purpose of causing more grief and drama. Immediately after brief discussion at my Talk page upon my asking them to drop what I will now call this petty crusade, they literally opened Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_February_25#County_Route_236_(Onondaga_County,_New_York)_(closed) Which serves to expand and prolong discussion, on an "issue" where there was no real disagreement. And then this AFD was later reopened. As noted by another participant in the deletion review, the AFD should not have been opened; a temporary misunderstanding could have been addressed by normal wp:BRD process. Personally, I experience this as bullying to try to abuse me. Why do administrators bully? Because they can. That is my understanding of what is going on here and goes on too often in Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Wrong venue. You're looking for WP:PM. Other then that, nom sounds great. casualdejekyll 21:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect — This should have not been reverted back to a standalone article, this county route is not notable enough on its own and should redirect to the list. Dough4872 21:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect basically per Dough4872. If you're upset the merge was never done, the correct response is to perform the merge, not to restore the entire article to make a point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gee, I am sorry to have given Rschen an excuse to cause drama, by their creating this unnecessary AFD. Which invites others interested in drama to chime in non-productively, in my opinion, with interest of chiding me perhaps, rather than interest in properly addressing the issue raised imperfectly by me. I was not myself up to speed on how to do the closure that should have been done originally. Okay, fine, I will close this and figure out how to post the proper merger-required tagging. Fie on all of you who just want drama! --Doncram (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This deletion discussion was closed by User:Doncram, a non-administrator, at 05:11, 25 February 2022. Pursuant to the powers vested in administrators by WP:DPR#NAC, I am vacating this closure. I am doing this because the closure was by a user involved in the debate, was before the customary time had elapsed, and was malformed. The discussion is deemed reopened, but given it has been closed for only a short period, I deem it reasonable to retain its original closing schedule. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is without prejudice to any other uninvolved administrator closing the debate early for a different valid reason. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given its lack of notability, the article is sufficiently covered as a list entry in List of county routes in Onondaga County, New York. –Fredddie™ 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to List of county routes in Onondaga County, New York. There is nothing on this page that can't be easily integrated into that page. I have also added some notes on the Talk page for the list of county routes with my thoughts on making the page better and more suited to being a target for the redirect including adding thumbnail maps to the table. Gusfriend (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Remind me again why we're still here when everyone here including the nom is OK with this outcome? Seems like it met the criteria for a speedy close and I'm not sure why it had to be reopened. Smartyllama (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable roadway. No problem with a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, and prior precedent. Literally WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colt Cadets Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

Contested PROD; Wanting to delete for similar reasons to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colts Drum and Bugle Corps Why? I Ask (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday: A Play in Verse[edit]

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

Currently sourced by a reference which does not reference the work, and a YouTube video. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Onel5969 TT me 22:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is at least mentioned here. I think that criticism of this play is likely to show up in criticism of collections of Masefield's works, and there might be plenty of it, but it is hard to find on Google. Someone ought to do a serious search for scholarly criticism of this play before we toss it out based on a casual google search. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you Ssilvers, your reference has pointed out a inaccurracy in the article copied over from John Masefield#Collections of poems (1916 >> 1914). I started the article because I wanted to know more about "Good Friday", a major work of verse by a future Poet Laureate. If it fails WP:GNG then WP:GNG, a recent work by anonymous editors, is not fit for purpose. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This work easily passes WP:GNG. A sampling of reliable sources providing significant coverage: Reviews in The Independent, North American Review, and The Nation; discussion in John Masefield: A Critical Study (pages 64–66); and discussion in an article on "Modern Passion Plays". These are all sources that I could freely read on Google Books; there are likely more that aren't indexed there or don't have a sufficient preview to confirm significant coverage. Also less freely available are results from a Wikipedia Library search, including reviews in Poetry and The Times. I hope those are all useful for improving the article, in addition to showing there are plenty of sources to support notability. --RL0919 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: additional input needed since one keep is the creator and the other keep and a comment do not constitute consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was delete. I have noted the number of, shall we say, very new accounts arguing to keep here. Given the issues with sock puppetry, arguments from those have been discounted. With what is left over from more experienced editors, the consensus is clearly to delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Cerrito[edit]

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

Deleted through AfD in 2014 and 2016, and the subject of a long-running sockpuppetry campaign to recreate. Current incarnation was created by what is almost certainly a UPE throwaway account, which has already had two other articles deleted as promotional (1 · 2). This looks very strongly like someone having gotten sick of not being able to evade SPI and paying someone else to do it for them, but sadly I can't prove that to a high enough degree of confidence to justify a G5 under WP:MEAT, and the text is sufficiently different to preclude G4, so here we are.

Cerrito has directed two films that we have articles on, Deadly Gamble and Human Hibachi. However, notability is not inherited, and the bulk of this article is promotionally-toned content about those films and his other works. The only non-inherited SIGCOV in the article are two local-news puff pieces and some mentions from when he was on an episode of Ghost Nation. The only other coverage I find in a BEFORE search is some news coverage from a time he witnessed a suicide.

While he is closer to notable now than he was in 2016, I still don't think he meets the bar, and urge deletion. Note: If this article is deleted, the title should be re-salted, as should the most recent salt-hacks, Mario Cerrito III., Mario G. Cerrito III, and Mario Cerrito 3rd. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC) ed. 14:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I vote keep. Individual has a lot of references on Google search. Has done notable work and was featured in National televised TV show. Career seems to have spanned about 10 years. Upon researching other independent filmmakers or actors that have Wikipedia pages, Mr. Cerrito seems to have more body or work and references. Summerlee44 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]
  • Keep When I saw that the article had been recreated, my knee-jerk reaction was to push for speedy deletion, a giveaway being that the title of the article was "Mario Ceritto III." with a period at the end of the name in an apparent attempt to pass under the radar. After further review of the article, it was clear that Cerrito does have coverage that is unambiguously about him and his work. The notability standard is met here. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt I find more hits for his appearance on Ghost Nation, which amounts to one time. Nothing in GNews beyond local sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to have enough sources to meet GNG, with plenty of google hits. Has directed notable films, which is not a given but helps his notability. The sockpuppetry is a seperate issue. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with above. Enough sources to meet notability standards.2601:8D:8700:5E10:D5E0:983D:E9A4:B0E8 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]
  • Note: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MikePlant1 regarding two of the above keep !votes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not a sock puppet of anyone. I live in the same area as the person and find it fascinating that is a movie maker in the south Jersey area (where I live.) Obviously I focus on individuals and things I appreciate or feel compelled to edit. I edited on his film back in 2018 because of course I knew about that as well. You are making a lot of accusations but are failing to see that the individual is notable with plenty of references and sources to back it up as stated by others. Instead of trying to put me down and make me feel like I am not wanted to edit on Wikipedia, support would be greatly appreciated.Summerlee44 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject's article has 48 inline cites and numerous credits listed on IMDb — more than sufficient evidence of his notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roman Spinner: First of all, you should acknowledge that you were canvassed here by Summerlee. Secondly, I'm trying to be deferential to process here by not removing all the low-quality citations that Summerlee and 2601 have added until after they're blocked as sockpuppets, but if you actually look at what those 48 citations are, many are to things as tangential as college athletic stats, or to user-generated content, with the only real RS coverage being local-news puff pieces. You are being suckered in by a serial sockmaster who's been at this for the better part of a decade and is just sticking every single Google hit for their own name into this article as references to boost the appearance of notability. And who, I note again, blatantly canvassed you to this discussion after admitting to have a COI with the subject (a narrative that, amusingly, differs from the one they've given here and at SPI). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For full transparency, noting that I've cut about 4kB worth of blatantly promotional, excessively detailed, unsourced, or poorly-sourced information. The entire article basically read like a CV. Much of what's left in the article is still seriously problematic, but this at least gives a somewhat better picture of what we're working with. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Summerlee did indeed post on my user talk page informing me of this AfD and if that were the reason for my participation here, I would have mentioned it in my vote. However, as you may or may not know, I previously voted at Talk:Mario Cerrito#Requested move 24 January 2022 and, since I watchlist all my edits, was already aware of this AfD and would have at some point voted here even if Summerlee had not contacted me.
As an inclusionist, I argue against deletion as part of virtually every AfD in which I participate. Furthermore, I have edited Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis for over 16 years and the majority of my edits are in fields of film and TV. Thus, you give me very little credit by writing, "You are being suckered in by a serial sockmaster...", since any filmmaker with the eight-year list of credits that Mario Cerrito has on IMDb would have earned a "keep" vote from me with no further arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Spinner: Per WP:INAPPNOTE, that message was obviously canvassing for two reasons: it was not neutral ("I did see you supported him as well", asking to reiterate support), and the audience chosen (you) was partisan instead of nonpartisan (evidenced by your inclusionist stance described above, highlighted by the fact that your last 42 !votes have been Keep, with the last recorded different vote being cast in December 2020; the canvasser's statement about your past support obviously counted on that). An experienced 16 year veteran editor such as yourself should know not to respond to inappropriate consensus-building attempts through WP:CANVASSING, so I ask that you please strike your vote. This is otherwise material for a AN complaint. Pilaz (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pilaz: Is it your position, that because of my "inclusionist stance", I should have recused myself from participating in this AfD as soon as I received the canvassing posting from Summerlee who must have felt that I was a supporter of Mario Cerrito?
In fact, I had never heard of Mario Cerrito before participating at Talk:Mario Cerrito#Requested move 24 January 2022 where my "support" vote was simply in favor of the uncontroversial technical request of punctuation deletion and also in favor of suggestion by another participant that the generational suffix "III" be deleted.
Also, your posting appears to imply either a) that as an inclusionsist I am not neutral and therefore should desist from participation in all deletion discussions, b) I should limit my recusal to participation in deletion discussions dealing with my most frequent editing topic — the entertainment industry, or c) I should have at least halted any involvement with this AfD as soon as I was canvassed by Summerlee.
If your position is (c), it would thus lead to the conclusion that had I voted here before receiving Summerlee's posting, my "keep" vote would have been in the clear, although still not neutral due to my inclusionism, but since I voted "keep" after receiving Summerlee's posting, I should strike my vote since it is tainted by Summerlee's canvassing.
I reject any suggestion of a lack of neutrality on my part or that Summerlee's posting had any effect on my vote. Also, to counter any presumption that, upon receiving Summerlee's posting, I rushed to cast my "keep" vote, it should be noted that Summerlee's posting on my talk page is dated 14:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC), while my one-sentence "keep" vote is dated 00:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC). The vote stands.
Finally, although I rarely, if ever, make personal comments about editors with whom I interact, I do not see your vote in this discussion and am puzzled by your decision to enter this AfD not to cast your own vote, but to single out my brief vote for attention and even to go so far as to mention the possibility of "a AN complaint". Is there an ax to grind here? —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Spinner: My position is the one I made above. You were canvassed and should not have participated in this AfD, are a partisan audience as described by WP:INAPPNOTE, were not notified neutrally, and were the only user canvassed out of everyone else who participated in the RM you described - any minimal due diligence on your part should have been to check whether others had been equally informed and, failing that, to inform them to level the playing field. If you don't see the problem with being canvassed by a blocked sock, I can't help with that beyond what I wrote here and above. Pilaz (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pilaz: Once again, I reject the suggestion that my "keep" vote was in any way influenced by Summerlee's posting on my talk page or that I became aware of this AfD as a result of that posting. Since I did no previous editing on anything related to Mario Cerrito and had no interaction with Summerlee prior to my vote at Talk:Mario Cerrito#Requested move 24 January 2022, there was no reason for me to suspect any need for due diligence or for contacting other participants.
I knew nothing about any "blocked sock" and merely arrived at both venues (RM as well as AfD) to cast a brief vote as I have done at numerous other occasions. Any implication that my receipt of Summerlee's posting disqualifies me from participation in this AfD has no basis in policy. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so you've said, over and over again. Whatever else may be the case, you are certainly now aware that you were canvassed here at the request of a sock puppet account. It would be optimal for you to withdraw of modify your !vote to take this into account but it is not necessary. The inappropriate notification of a !voter, no matter how honest that !voter believes their input to be, is something that the closer here is able take into account per WP:NHC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it over and over again in response to the same issue being raised over and over again — Summerlee's posting on my talk page invited me to vote on the Mario Cerrito AfD which was already known to me due to the fact that the Mario Cerrito article was on my watchlist.
I made a decision to vote "keep" as soon as I learned about the AfD and planned to cast my vote at some point in the near future when I got around to it. Summerlee's posting appeared less than an hour after the AfD opened, but I didn't get around to vote on it until three days later.
Thus, you appear to be saying that had I voted "keep" within the few minutes between the opening of the AfD and the appearance of Summerlee's posting on my talk page, then my vote would have been cast in good faith, but because I voted after receiving Summerlee's posting, even if it was three days after, my vote should be perceived by the closer as tainted. Such a premise and conclusion are both flawed. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are a few articles about him in local-but-mainstream publications. I removed the refs to IMDB and the PR site. I suspect, also, that the links to horrornews.net, horrorfuel.com, and dvdlocker.com are not acceptable as reliable sources. I also note that neither of the "film festivals" has enough presence to warrant the red wiki-links, so I think those should be removed. If these non-reliable sources are removed then I think with the local New Jersey papers there is just enough to keep this article. Lamona (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant coverage in multiple sources, and seems to make reasonable claims of notability, think its an easy keep. Saiskysat (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting because of the sock issue. Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: I have formatted your relist so that it presents correctly to xfd closer. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist as per request to reopen on closer's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt: The vast majority of sources in the article or in searches are not useful. Those sources that are independent and reliable are generally not significant and vice-versa. The exceptions are the extremely local coverage from hometown papers. For a supposed nationally-distributed filmmaker, local coverage is simply not good enough evidence of WP:SIGCOV. The repeated sock-puppetry in this article and in this discussion justify create protection. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!vote by, and discussion with, blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep and Comment I am a little upset about this being up for deletion again after it just passed for "keep." As a working artist and businessman your name means a lot. I am currently casting for a new movie and was just informed this morning by an actors agent after he "googled me" that my wikipedia is facing deletion. He asked me why. As embarrassing as it was when he asked me, I didn't know how to respond. What is irritating me the worst is after researching the history on the article it was JUST nominated for deletion and passed as "keep." As much as I don't know about wikipedia I started doing some research/reading and found under (Wikipedia: Renominating for Deletion) it states : If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. After checking it has literally been a matter of 5 days and a page about me has the deletion tag again and it is not right. I can read above that Tamzin seems to have the problem and upon looking at the just passed deletion discussion she forgot to mention it looks to be 5 Keep votes including Alanshohn, Eddy, Roman Spinner, Lamona and Saisykat. I see that a few were crossed out for whatever reasons but I am going off of what I am reading. You have to understand that as a working artist and individual something like a deletion tag on the first website that pops up when people "google you" is very demeaning. I am in the process of casting a film and people do research of who they are working with. To point out something else under (Wikipedia : Renominating for deletion) it also states "If you wish to renominate the page, hoping to achieve a different outcome, then slow down. You and the other participants may be overly involved with a particular perspective. Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them." I feel this has been handled unfairly and wished to express my concerns here on the discussion page. MarioCerrito (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — MarioCerrito (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Summerlee44 (talk · contribs). [reply]
@MarioCerrito:, there is a fundamental inaccuracy in your question. The article did not recently "pass as Keep". Geschichte closed this discussion with a status of "Keep" on Feb 10 but then reopened this same discussion after Tamzin pointed out that the discussion was impacted by invalid comments. Since you posted an identical message on Geschichte's user talk page, I'm sure you read the message immediately above yours explaining this. This may sound like nitpicking but it substantively means that your entire point about being tagged for deletion twice in a short time has no basis. Whatever effect you think this has on your professional status is something we cannot control. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a place where working artists and professionals can promote themselves. LinkedIn and Alignable and other places exist for that and do that better than we can. It exists to summarize what has been written about any topic that can demonstrate signifcant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The coverage that exists is not something that we control. On a more personal note, I have to state that I am also a working artist and professional and I have no article here nor would I ever want one. The mistake a lot of those in our situation make is in thinking that Wikipedia hosts pages on people. It does not. It writes articles on subjects. The difference is that the first presents a person as they wish to be seen and the second summarizes how others have written or talked about them. An article about oneself is not always a good thing. I hope that helps explain some things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:, Hi! Awesome to hear your a fellow artist. So to address this some more, I obviously am not up to speed like you guys on the Wikipedia lingo and all but I simply meant that the article was kept. After reading I see that if someone has closed a deletion discussion it says at the bottom "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." That case was not followed here. There was no deletion review, just a simple reopen after it was just closed 5 days ago. And getting back to this (Wikipedia: Renominating for Deletion) it states : If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. How is this OK? Simply because the user Tamzin was not satisfied with the result? It doesn't seem right. And yes I totally understand what you're saying about personal and Wikipedia world and obviously I am not part of the Wikipedia world so I am learning that but in the meantime I am also defending the situation I do not think was handled properly. Thanks and I am not being malicious at all just simply stating the facts. Best, Mario.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioCerrito (talk • contribs) 14:24, February 15, 2022 (UTC)
@MarioCerrito:, Except you have your facts somewhat incorrect. There was no renomination so the standards about that don't apply. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE states that editors can use formal processes such as WP:DRV but you can also speak to the closer if you think there was information the closer should have taken into account but were not aware of. That is exactly what happened here and Geschichte obviously agreed that there was a concern that invalidated their close. The "No further comments" message then becomes irrelevant because by reverting their own close, Geschichte opened the floor to further comments. And it was reopened not because of one editor's dissatisfaction but because this discussion was impacted negatively by users disrupting the discussion. See WP:SOCK for more information but the relevant passage is: ...it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, ... By making multiple !votes under different identities, there has been a distortion of the consensus and the previous close is not reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:, What you sent me is contesting a deleted page not a kept page. I don't want to argue I am curious as to how many pages are put into "kept status" and then immediately put back into deletion discussion a few days later. Especially since it clearly states that they should not be opened back up into deletion discussion until months later. There is also a specific process under deletion review. MarioCerrito (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioCerrito: The previous status of "keep" was reached by a single editor, Geschichte, who at that time believed the consensus justified closing in that manner. A closing editor reserves the right to reverse their own decision, as Geschichte did and therefore invite further discussion. A relist in this instance is essentially extending the length of time afforded to consider the validity of the article and whether or not it should exist. This is not a new discussion and you need to disregard what is now an erroneous "keep". I ensured the relist was handled correctly, but have no personal opinion on the matter. Eggishorn explained this all to you very eloquently above. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle: Understood. I was just stating my concerns on the matter.MarioCerrito (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve

I agree this article reads like a resume, but that can be relatively easily changed. @MarioCerrito: If you want this article kept, I would suggest you make it read more like an encyclopedia. The article does need to read less as a promotion and strictly talk about the content you've produced. Lincoln1809 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioCerrito: I don't agree with Lincoln1809. Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the Wikipedia article about yourself. If you have any specific suggestions, you can post them on the article's talk page - Talk:Mario Cerrito - with the {{edit request}} template. Or you could use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty:I have never edited this article before. MarioCerrito (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: and @Lincoln1809: for context, MarioCerrito was blocked for sockpupeting, demonstrating willingness to lie. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft or delete The notability of the subject is not well established at all. The writing is very poor and looks promotional, not encylopedic. If "delete" is resisted then at least move to draft. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no sources which are independent, reliable, and significant at the same time, so there are no sources which would count towards notability. If anyone reading this believes there are sources which demonstrate notability, then please pick out these good sources and list them on this page for evaluation. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources seem to pass WP:GNG to me. The notable films he directed, makes the page worth keeping Cyberwayfolk (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific notable movies do you keep in mind? I assume you mean Deadly Gamble, Ghost Nation (one episode), and Human Hibachi. Appearance in Ghost Nation is likely not notable because WP:NARTIST explicitly excludes "a single episode of a television series" from criteria of notability. I quickly looked over Deadly Gamble and Human Hibachi and am not certain they are notable. If you like, I can look in more detail to confirm at least one is notable or AfD them. Also, edit histories of both movies contain significant contributions made by banned accounts, so both articles at some point were edited in bad faith. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable local filmmaker, there are so many other similar independent, low budget film makers whose articles we have deleted. I've looked at all three AFD discussions and they have all been plagued with sockpuppet activity, so much that I almost think this page should be salted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I just discovered that another title for this filmmaker, Mario Cerrito III, has already been salted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As is Mario Joseph Cerrito and Mario Joseph Cerrito 3rd. Three titles for this fellow are already salted, that is a bad sign. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Read through everything and some people are talking about no independent, reliable and significant sources. But I have seen plenty just in the reference section alone. If you look at them, they are news articles that focused solely on individual and his work. NJ.com is not a "local" publication that is NJ state level and he has been covered multiple times by multiple writers. The Sockpuppet stuff doesn't define whether someone is notable or not as Editorofthewiki mentioned above. There is enough here for inclusion.

Just some Examples of strong sources (I'm fairly certain someone that is non notable would not get written about 5 different times by NJ.com)

1. A publication in Philadelphia https://southphillyreview.com/2021/09/09/south-philly-director-cooks-up-another-horror-film/ 2. NJ.com A. articles http://www.nj.com/indulge/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_filmmaker_to_release_thriller_deadly_gamble.html B.http://www.nj.com/indulge/index.ssf/2015/03/deadly_gamble_nj_filmmaker_feature_film_now_available_on_demand.html C. https://www.nj.com/south/2013/06/james_gandolfini_legacy_loss_f.html D. https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/2018/08/cerrito_film.html E. https://www.nj.com/south/2016/01/7_year_old_with_chronic_illness_to_appear_in_nj_fi.html 3. Courier-Post https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2019/10/26/ghost-nation-travel-channel-reveals-reasons-mario-cerrito-home-haunted/2461303001/ WexfordUK (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from New Jersey. NJ.com needs content like any media site and writes feature articles about local "celebrities" like any geographically-oriented paper/website does. It is state level in that it covers state issues (and local ones as well) but, honestly, NJ is a small state. It's not like NJ.com is the NYTimes, it's a website that focuses on NJ news, people and events. It has articles about politics in Trenton but also subjects like high school football and local lottery winners.
As for sockpuppets, how does an account that has been active for 2 days find its way to this AFD? You haven't been here long enough to have a User talk page yet. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Small state but most densely populated. Again, if he was non notable why would he get written about so often. I didn’t realize everyone on Wikipedia had to be in NYTimes WexfordUK (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't need to be in the NYTimes to be considered notable. But notability is also not determined by the number of articles the local paper/website runs on you, local media loves celebrities who live in the town or state, no matter how big or small they are. And, yes, NJ.com covers the state but I still consider that local, not national, in coverage. And yes, it is the most densely populated U.S. state but I lived where there were rabbits living in the back yard and skunks, ground hogs, deer and wild turkeys (the animal variety) and even bears passing through. Farmland & urban sprawl, is a state of dramatic contrasts, that is for sure. End of NJ chatter. Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for this article, I can't get past the fact that we have so many pages on this fellow salted already, that speaks volumes to me. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: It isn’t just NJ.com I see, it’s Philadelphia based papers, other articles from other areas and a good amount of Horror sites from all over. I’m not saying he is Wes Craven but there’s are different levels of notability. Also to add, a whole episode (Episode 3 - The Novelist’s Nightmare) of Travel Channel’s Ghost Nation (TV Series) was filmed at his home on him and his family, covered by multiple sources. And to me it seems the sock issue was an article trying to get created for him over time and having to make new adjustments to name Bc of the others being salted. It seems they were given no chance because of recreation. As many have said, he seems to be notable per sources listed and body of work. The sock issues doesn’t determine notability. WexfordUK (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems to have reasonably good number of reliable sources. I think GNG meet here. The work done by him in the industry mentioned in this article seems notable. Other issues may be resolved but the article may be kept. Billshine (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can get a sock-free week of source discussion by established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Also, do not give into the socks. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 02:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla: Why should the subject suffer from the misuse of the platform by others. As stated above, sock puppets do not have bearing on whether someone is notable or not. The sources that are listed in the reference section show he is notable and has been over a span of ten years. WexfordUK (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just curious is this the longest AfD in wiki history? WexfordUK (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nah it has some company for sure. Star Mississippi 01:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: ha, amazing. I think this article needs a sub section of the sock puppets eventually. Sourced of course. WexfordUK (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ignoring quotes, there is enough content between the sources to establish notability in my opinion. The article certainly shouldn't be deleted purely due to sock accounts or due to WP:OTHERSTUFF. NemesisAT (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage to support that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 02:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Music Society of North America[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I cannot find sources establishing notability. Website appears to be down, and I cannot find record of the supposedly quarterly, peer-reviewed journal it publishes. (Searched in English and Chinese.) WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Li, Yuanyuan (July 1983). "Ting na guo yue: Listen to that national music (an introduction to the promotional work done by the Chinese Music Society of North America)". Mingpao Monthly [zh] (in Chinese). Vol. 18, no. 7. Media Chinese International. pp. 37–38. EBSCOhost A427656.

      The English-language abstract notes: "Since the establishment of the Chinese Music Society of North America, the international organization as well as the regional chapters have used various means to expand the contact of the general public with Chinese music and to increase their ability to understand it. The author discusses the research sponsored by the society and the journal Chinese music, first published in 1978."

    2. Jeffcoat, Kyle (2009). "Contesting the Modern Ethnic Orchestra on Transnational Terrains: Comparing Two Chinese Orchestras in Post-WWII America". American Association for Chinese Studies 51st Annual Conference Program. American Association for Chinese Studies. City University of New York. Archived from the original on 2022-02-14. Retrieved 2022-02-14.

      This is a conference paper for the 2009 conference. According to this 2018 article in the American Journal of Chinese Studies, "Peter C.Y. Chow moved the Secretariat to the City University of New York where he has now served as the association's first Executive Director for twenty years." The conference paper provides a lengthy and critical analysis of the association's history:

      The Chinese Music Society of North America (CMSNA) was initially organized in 1969 as the Chinese Musician’s International Network (CMIN) which grew into an international organization and changed its name to Chinese Music Society of North America in 1976 after registering with the federal government as a non-profit organization. During that same year the group formed the Chinese Classical Orchestra with initially only a dozen members. In a pamphlet mailed out to various institutions across the United States in 1981, the CMSNA announced that it would sponsor a free presentation featuring Mao Yuan as a guest speaker and that from 1976 to 1978 the orchestra annually performed Mao Yuan’s “Dance of Yao” (瑤族舞曲), most likely the 1954 Peng Xiuwen (彭修文) arrangement for modern Chinese orchestra.

      The CMSNA began publishing their official international journal Chinese Music in 1978. Nearly all of the cited sources in this journal come from their own publications and the majority of them are authored by the Shen Sin-yan, who is also the main editor of the publication and one of the main co-founders of CMSNA. The chauvinism of CMSNA is quite evident in many respects, but the following sentence efficaciously sums up their excessive boasting: “From coast to coast, from continent to continent, the critic’s choice for the last three decades, the Chinese Music Society of North America has produced the most culturally and artistically stimulating musical experience in Chinese Music globally.” In 2005, Xiao Jun made a similar declaration of superiority, however, going a step further by providing a precise location: “In the beginning of the 1970’s, Chicago became the center of Chinese music internationally.” In 1978, the group recognized itself as “one of the best Chinese orchestras in the US,” but not as the best or the center of all Chinese music in the entire world, therefore we can see how such boastings were not formed until later in the group’s history. It is important to notice how they implicitly admitted that other respectable Chinese orchestras in the US at that time existed because never again was such recognition seen in print after the late 1970s.

    3. Annual Report. National Endowment for the Arts. 2000. pp. 52–53. Retrieved 2022-02-14 – via Google Books.

      According to commons:Template:PD-USGov-NEA, works from the National Endowment for the Arts are in the public domain since it is a work of the U.S. federal government.

      The report notes: "The Chinese Music Society of North America in Naperville, Illinois was organized in 1969 to increase the knowledge of Chinese music and performing arts, and became a nonprofit organization in 1976. The Society often works through performances by the Chinese Classical Orchestra, led by Dr. Shen Sin-yan, an authority on Chinese music. Today, the Society membership numbers more than 1,800 musicians and music lovers. In performance and on recordings, the Chinese Classical Orchestra has internationalized Chinese music over the last two decades, making it more accessible to the general public. In FY 2004, the Society received an NEA Challenge America grant of $10,000 to support the 2004–2005 season gala concert of the Chinese Classical Orchestra. The gala concert was held on November 6, 2004 in the International House Auditorium of Chicago. The orchestra uses traditional Chinese instruments such as the bawu, a free-reeded bamboo flute; the yangqin, a grand dulcimer; the erhu, a vertical python-skin fiddle; and the pipa, a grand lute. The program included traditional Chinese folk music, a Peking Opera medley, and works by contemporary Chinese composers. Compositions performed included Moon over the Mountain Pass, military music from the Tang Dynasty; The Flower Sobs by 20th-century Suzhou Pingtan ballad singer Xu Lixian; and Yan Tieming's Fishing Song featuring the haunting sound of the bawu. The concert drew a predominantly Asian-American audience from the Chicago metropolitan area, northern Indiana, and Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin."

    4. "'Chinese Music; official publication of the Chinese Music Society of North America". 1810 Overture. 9. Northwestern University: 4. 1980. Retrieved 2022-02-14 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "Chinese Music; official publication of the Chinese Music Society of North America. Vol. 2-, No. 2-, June 1979- (Our holdings of this newly entitled journal are complete, from the first issue.) This quarterly journal supersedes the Chinese Music General Newsletter, also the Chinese Music Society of North America's official organ. The society itself is based in Woodridge, Illinois and represents a much larger concern than publishing the journal which is to serve as a "forerunner in research and promotion of Chinese music." First, the organization maintains a functional traditional Chinese orchestra and offers many lecture-demonstrations on the music of the Chinese with the orchestra. Second, it published cassette recordings of Chinese music. Articles in the periodical are generally on Chinese composers, genre, instruments, and theoretical principles -- with all transliterations via the Pinyin system. Music Index issues to cover this journal are not available yet."

      Here is more information about 1810 Overture:

      • Campana, Deborah (March 1991). "Information Flow: Written Communication among Music Librarians". Notes. 47 (3). Music Library Association: 692. ISSN 0027-4380. JSTOR 941855.

        The journal notes: "Among the more notable music library newsletters are: ... NU Quarter Notes (formerly, 1810 Overture; Northwestern Unviersity; 1972– ); ... Although such publications are produced for the benefit of local users, there is what might be described as a meta-audience of librarians at other institutions who subscribe to these newsletters to keep apprised of their sister institutions."

    5. Stone, Ruth M. (2017). The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music: The United States and Canada. Vol. 3. London: Routledge. p. 953. ISBN 978-1-351-54414-6. Retrieved 2022-02-14 – via Google Books.

      The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In Chicago, the Chinese Music Society of North America publishes a semischolarly magazine, Chinese Music, and provides performances by a modern-style Chinese orchestra staffed by a mixture of Chinese and non-Chinese musicians."

    6. Coverage of the journal:
      1. Knysak, Benjamin (June 2018). "Musical Information in a New Land: Immigrant Music Periodicals in the United States Part Two: 1931–2000". Notes. 74 (4). Music Library Association: 561. ISSN 0027-4380. JSTOR 26781920.

        The article notes: "Chinese Music General Newsletter; from 1979: Chinese Music. Woodridge, IL, 1977–2010. Grove US1089. 33 vols., quarterly. English (Chinese). Widely held. Published in English by the Chinese Music Society of North America, this journal aims to disseminate information on Chinese music to an audience broader than the Chinese migr population alone. The journal published research articles on Chinese instruments, musical styles and genres, compositions; musical news from China and of Chinese musicians in China and abroad; and reviews of books and recordings."

      2. Post, Jennifer C. (2004). Ethnomusicology: A Research and Information Guide. New York: Routledge. p. 87. ISBN 0-415-93834-1. Retrieved 2022-02-14 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "336. Chinese Music. 1978-. Chinese Music Society of North America. Woodridge, 111.: Chinese Music Society of North America. Quarterly. ISSN: 01923749. An international refereed journal published quarterly by the Chinese Music Society of North American and devoted to the study of the music and acoustics of China, and their relationship to those of other regions of the world. Includes articles, news, and book and recording reviews. Table of content and abstracts: http://chinesemusic.net/CM_Journal.html."

      3. 杨宇 (1981). "北美洲中国音乐研究会编辑出版《中国音乐》" [The Chinese Music Society of North America edited and published "Chinese Music"] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-14. Retrieved 2022-02-14 – via CNKI.

        The article notes: "Chinese Music, edited and published by the Chinese Music Society of North America, is an international academic quarterly journal on Chinese music, published in March, June, September and December every year. The purpose of the journal is: to introduce and disseminate Chinese music to the world, and to promote people's correct understanding and understanding of this excellent music culture system. The content of the publication involves; music theory, compositions, acoustic studies, classical music, local music, opera, musical instruments, musicians, news reports."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Chinese Music Society of North America (simplified Chinese: 北美洲中国音乐研究会; traditional Chinese: 北美洲中國音樂研究會) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per GNG – Thanks to Cunard for finding new references. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. VocalIndia (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the opportunity to discuss Cunard's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on sourcing from @Cunard. I appreciate their effort and am genuinely interested in the minutiae of notability here (clearly, I need to go outside more). I was rather surprised by the volume of sources at first glance given the WP:BEFORE I did, but I would argue that further examination suggests that several of these are inadequate to support GNG.
    • Red XN 1 fails WP:INDEPENDENT: Yuan-yuan Lee is an officer of the CMNSA, see e.g. here, where she is listed as a contact.
    • Green tickY 2 qualifies as reliable, independent, and significant coverage. It also decidedly weighs against considering Chinese Music as a reliable or independent source in itself, raising further questions on how we are to evaluate its inclusion in some libraries' catalogs when it comes to notability.
    • Blue question mark? 3 — I am personally very hesitant to describe a 2004 grant description as qualifying. A few things to consider (n.b. Google apparently combined NEA's annual reports from 2000 to 2004 into a single file; the CMSNA grant is from 2004, not 2000):
      • Is it significant? The first paragraph is a description of the organization; the remaining two describe the $10,000 grant's application to a single concert given in November 2004.
      • Given that the grantor-grantee relationship is inherently financial, do we consider this truly independent coverage? The NEA presumably takes the provided information from an applicant itself and evaluates based on provided materials. How does that square with the requirement that "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"?
    • Red XN 4, based on the snippet visible in Google Books and the explanatory article talking about the source itself, fails SIGCOV. As Campana's article notes, 1810 Overture is a library newsletter, which tend to "provide local clientele with... guides to using specific collections. Many also serve as bibliographic instruction tools, reporting on reference materials and other new acquisitions..." — in other words, barring evidence to suggest the snippet we can see is more substantive, it looks to simply be a paragraph describing the journal's addition to the library catalog. A library's acquisition of a journal does not make it notable, and the only reason we see these sources is precisely because the journal is functionally never mentioned anywhere else or cited in related academic research.
    • Red XN 5 is trivial coverage. WP:ORGDEPTH specifically excludes "listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." If the Garland Encyclopedia had provided something like an "entry giving an overview of the history of an organization" that would qualify.
    • Blue question mark? 6. Specifically, Red XN for sub-sources 1 & 2 — these merely describe the journal's presence in library catalogs with a basic description of content. Blue question mark? re: Sub-source 3, which lacks relevant citation data such as the place of publication; further digging suggests it was in a magazine called 乐器. Note that the only other listing I could find for the article, also from CNKI, gives the download as a single page; I suspect this is similarly a mere description of the journal without substantive coverage, but I cannot access CNKI with my non-mainland Chinese account (this, accordingly, represents a verifiability issue, one of the many frustrating aspects of CNKI).
At best, it seems, we are left with one conference paper that does examine the group in significant detail, a paragraph from a 1981 magazine in China that gives a short description of its journal, and a paragraph from the NEA describing a 2004 grant to the organization (the other two paragraphs detailing the grant itself and a concert put on). Given this, I am having trouble envisioning what sort of article this could even look like. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for reviewing the sources. I have stricken the Yuan-yuan Lee source. I think the other sources contribute to notability. The National Endowment for the Arts needed to evaluate the Chinese Music Society of North America's request for funding so they conducted research and analysis into the group so I view their coverage as independent. I have provided one more source below. Cunard (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
chinese text causing side scroll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article notes:

"当值“北美洲中国音乐研究会”成立十五周年之际，由“北美洲中国音乐研究会”和“美国大学音乐学会”等六个美国音乐学会共同举办的以“中国音乐对二十一世纪音乐的影响”为主题的中国音乐国际研讨会，于年月日至日在美国芝加哥隆重召开。来自世界五大洲的八百多名音乐家聚集于芝加哥古老而豪华的帕尔莫大酒店，就“中国音乐对二十一世纪音乐的影响”进行研讨和学术交流

...

配合填补研究中的空白的讨论，北美洲中国音乐研究会出版了《中国音乐及管弦乐法—原则与实践》一书。对广义和声学与中国音乐及管弦乐法的关系作了深入浅出的讨论‘并从音响学的角度帮助现代作曲家了解中国音乐。此书在会议期间一售而空。它的内容方法与观念都很新颖。

...

北美洲中国音乐研究会年正式成立后，在其特定的历史及政治背景下对中国音乐的介绍和研究在美国及世界许多国家已经产生了深远的影响。同时，这个组织卓有成效的工作已使它获得美国联邦政府及所在的伊利诺斯州政府的财政支持和法律地位的认可，目前它已成为在美国联邦政府注册的世界性非牟利机构，它拥有向世界各国发行的英文季刊 (Chinese music) (ISSN 0192–3749)，作为研究结果及全世界中国音乐活动的发表园地。同时它还拥有自己的民族管弦乐团，并于年又成立了“北美洲中国音乐研究会丝竹乐团”。

From Google Translate:

On the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the founding of the "Chinese Music Society of North America", six American music societies including the "Chinese Music Society of North America" and the "American University Music Society" jointly organized the "Chinese Music to Twenty-One" The International Symposium on Chinese Music with the theme of "The Influence of Century Music" was held in Chicago, the United States. More than 800 musicians from five continents gathered in the ancient and luxurious Palmer Hotel in Chicago to conduct seminars and academic exchanges on "The Influence of Chinese Music on Music in the 21st Century"

...

In conjunction with the discussion of filling in the gaps in the research, the Chinese Music Society of North America published the book "Chinese Music and Orchestral Music - Principles and Practice". The relationship between generalized harmony and Chinese music and orchestral method is discussed in a simple way, and helps modern composers understand Chinese music from the perspective of acoustics. The book sold out during the conference. Its content methods and concepts are novel.

...

After the official establishment of the Chinese Music Society of North America, the introduction and research of Chinese music under its specific historical and political background has had a profound impact in the United States and many countries in the world. At the same time, the fruitful work of this organization has enabled it to obtain the financial support and legal status of the US federal government and the Illinois state government where it is located. At present, it has become a worldwide non-profit organization registered with the US federal government. The English-language quarterly (Chinese music) (ISSN 0192–3749) published by countries around the world serves as a place for the publication of research results and Chinese music events around the world. At the same time, it also has its own national orchestra, and in 2008 established the "Chinese Music Society of North America Sizhu Orchestra".

Cunard (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your efforts. This source is much more substantive. I still believe the NEA and library catalog/newsletter issues are insufficient, but I leave it to others willing to go through our walls of text above to see if they agree and/or consider the above source + source number 2 in your list sufficient for GNG regardless. Cheers! WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on hatted text: it was causing a side scroll and as I imagine the english-language translation is what's more helpful for participants here, I've hidden the original. Please revert or edit if there's another way to solve @Cunard:. Star Mississippi 15:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's a rather substantive thesis by K Jeffcoat in GScholar, three pages in. I think with the other sources above, it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This is the same as source 2 described above, I believe. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Note that the delete !vote following the nomination is not guideline- or policy-based. WP:NWX is an opinion essay that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community and is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines North America1000 02:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa tornado outbreak of July 2018[edit]

Iowa tornado outbreak of July 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a copy of information that is available on List of United States tornadoes from June to July 2018 and Tornadoes of 2018. This outbreak doesn't meet the usual Wikiproject standard for inclusion (i.e. substantial number of tornadoes, EF4+ tornadoes, deadly tornadoes, urban tornadoes, etc.) and should be deleted. Information can easily be covered in the aforementioned articles. This was recently created by an anon user who may have little to know knowledge of Wikiproject guidelines regarding marginal outbreaks. United States Man (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there are definitely sources on it, it caused $320 million of damage, and there were >50 casualties caused due to the event. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 18:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Williams (equestrian)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, failing NOLY alone is not a reason to delete. Per NSPORT, which it is part of, Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to pass GNG per the sources in the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG requires multiple indepdent sources. 3 of these sources all have the same writer, so GNG is not being met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Sails past WP:NEQUESTRIAN which states "Individual people and horses who are involved in equestrian sport are presumed notable if they: 1.Have participated at the Olympic Equestrian Events as a rider or official team coach". LibStar: please check policies properly before nominating AfD: WP:NOLY clearly states "Athletes from some sports are presumed notable if they have participated in the Olympics with or without winning a medal. Please see individual sports above for more information." Cabrils (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think there is quite sufficient in these three search results [29][30][31] to support GNG. (There is almost certainly more but I stopped looking.) Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Noting that the nominator essentially withdrew their nomination by !voting "strongly keep" below. ✗plicit 11:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KAT Hospital[edit]

KAT Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) KAT Hospital is unreliable and a stub. First of all, there's no citations meaning that it's unreliable. Second of all, it's too short, i.e. a stub, and therefore doesn't have enough information. So, it needs to be removed for I don't have enough to be able to add citations. EBotsEleẞotstalks 02:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question EBoters Electron, have you completed a comprehensive search for sources in the Greek language? Cullen328 (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No I haven't yet made a comprehensive search for sources in the Greek language @Cullen328. EBotsEleẞotstalks 23:37, 23 Februar, {{y 2022 (UTC)
      • Then how can you possibly reach an informed conclusion that the hospital is not notable and that the article should therefore be deleted, EBoters Electron? Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find sources, expand, and then keep This seems to be a quite substantial hospital, so it seems absurd to delete it. Google searches for "Γενικό Νοσοκομείο Αττικής ΚΑΤ" and "Νοσοκομείο ΚΑΤ" find many pages, all in Greek, that mention it, and at least some like this, this, this and this are more than mere mentions. I'm sure that more creative searching will find more. However, I don't speak Greek, so can't help any further. -- The Anome (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep I realized the fate of the article is to keep it. Thanks @The Anome, @Cullen328, and @Vaco98 for helping me decide. EBotsEleẞotstalks 23:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the major hospitals in Greece, the biggest hospital in the country specialized in orthopaedic cases. The orthopaedic clinics of the University of Athens are departments of the KAT hospital. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources shared above establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is a good hospital and it's notable for Wikipedia Thingofme (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 02:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 422[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Interstate 422 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advanced search for: 
"Birmingham Northern Beltline"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

A poster child for WP:NOTCRYSTAL, as the project ground to a halt less than a year after the previous AfD concluded, as related here. Contrary to the article and the previous discussion, no segment has been completed: there are some disconnected sections of paving, connecting to nothing. So there is no I-422, and it looks as though for now there isn't going to be; it might not even be given this name if it is ever completed. Possibly there is some record of failed highway projects we keep where this material can be used, but this needs to have gone the first time around. Mangoe (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to come to consensus on merger target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As repeatedly demonstrated at AFD, failed proposals (for secession of states, for many other actions) are frequently notable and Wikipedia articles about them are Kept. E.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada, closed Keep in June 2021, which lists numerous proposals, some having separate articles. Because a proposal can have plenty of substantial coverage, justifying an article, and this is good IMHO because it is important for the world to "remember" and learn from the proposals. I believe that the deletion nominator is fully aware of this, and their proposal citing WP:NOTCRYSTAL is completely unjustified. Another experienced editor goes with statement that "There is no actual working road" which is absolutely besides the point.
Merging an article about a proposal to a suitable list-article can be done sometimes if there is an appropriate target to which to merge, and if the merger material would not be too much to include in the target. However List of future Interstate Highways does not sound like an appropriate target, because this proposal is understood not to be one of those. The "Proposals" subsection of that list is about, I think, proposals that are still viable and expected to become future Interstate Highways. And further note every one of the proposal subsections there links to a separate "main" article. If that list-article were to be renamed and/or other editing took place there which led to inclusion there of a section on this proposal, that might be fine and good, but still the existing separate article should be Kept because the material is too long to include there.
Suggestions above that this article should be renamed to "Birmingham Northern Beltline" sound reasonable perhaps, to me, but the AFD should be closed "Keep", and a rename proposal can be separately considered using usual wp:RM method. This discussion itself is not adequate to justify a rename, IMO, as many participants here are not considering it as the main real option. I think it best to just close this as Keep, or "Keep, obviously", perhaps with explicit admonishment to the deletion nominator and perhaps others not to waste others' time at wp:AFD. --Doncram (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. See Draft:Ravanasura. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravanasura[edit]

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

Ravanasura

This is an unreleased film, and does not satisfy any past, present, or proposed version of film notability, or general notability. There is a myth that all unreleased films become notable when they have completed principal photography. That is a myth that has never been true of any past, present, or proposed guideline. Nothing in this article makes any claim of notability except for the start of production, which is not enough.

A review of the references shows nothing that contributes to general notability, just advance publicity and announcements about casting and filming, nothing amounting to independent significant coverage.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Times of India Advance publicity that doesn’t name the movie No No No No
2 Telugu apblive Advance publicity for the movie No No No
3 Cinema Express Advance publicity - Very much like 2 but in English No No No
4 Telugu apblive More advance publicity for the movie No No No
5 Times of India Announcement of launch of movie No No No
6 IndiaToday.in Advance publicity No No
7 Cinema Express Announcement of launch of movie No No No
8 Indian Express Announcement of casting of star No No No
9 Outlook India Interview with one of the actors No No No
10 Telanganatoday Start of principal photography Yes Yes No
11 Times of India Start of principal photography Yes Yes No No
12 Cinema Express Start of principal photography Yes Yes No
13 Sakshi Post Advance publicity and announcement of launch No No No
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. K. Varghese[edit]

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

BLP of the mayor of Thrissur. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPOL as only holding municipal office. Curbon7 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not pass WP:NPOL and lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Ts12rActalk to me 09:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability as per the norms, fails GNG. Timetraveller80 (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do significantly better. Thrissur is certainly a large and significant enough city that a mayor would be eligible to keep a well-sourced article, but no size of city ever confers an "inherent" notability freebie on a mayor who's sourced exclusively to a single 174-word blurb announcing his appointment as mayor but failing to provide any ongoing career coverage of his work in the mayor's chair. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those who like news reports (which are treated on Wikipedia as if they are secondary sources) there seem to be many found by Google News, but quite a lot of them are about his own sense of self-importance, such as this and this, so it's difficult to summarise them without violating WP:BLP by making the subject a laughing stock. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Holy cow Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is without prejudice to the possibility of a merger, which is a normal editorial action that can be taken following a discussion on an article talk page, or under WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Captain Flag[edit]

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

I prodded this a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". User:Toughpigs deprodded ith and expanded, with the edit summary "added more information from independent reliable sources". Unfortunately, the article is still limited to just a plot summary and publication history and contains zero indication why the subject meets WP:GNG. The linked sources I checked don't seem to go beyond said plot summary and list of works he appeared in, and I am afraid that's too little to meet GNG (as well as WP:SIGCOV). Side note to people new to the topic area: a lot of "comic book encyclopedias" are illustrated plot summaries, not written by scholars but by fans, and are in-universe, and/or much closer to illustrated books for young readers/fans or graphic novels than encyclopedias. So the argument "notable because he is mentioned in another encyclopedia" is not going to be very helpful here, I am afraid. The Encyclopedia of Golden Age Superheroes is not an academic work but a fan Kickstarter project... and while I couldn't access the print version, I think it just reproduces the contents found on the author's website: [32]/[33], and I think this is representative of the coverage of this super niche character in general (no analysis anywhere, just plot summary and least of appearances, sorry if I sound like a broken record). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes per Argento Surfer. While the character is mentioned in some sources, none of those sources actually constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Several sources have been added to the article since the AFD started, but none of them appear to actually be significant coverage, and several of them are on a completely different character and don't even mention Captain Flag, so I'm not even sure why they were added. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the sources are poor, but others have a page+ of material. We don't delete (or merge) because some of the sourcing is poor. In this case, we've identified sources that do cover the topic in depth. The only real debate at this point is if sources that are mostly (but not entirely) about plot are useful toward the GNG. It's a fairly novel argument to claim that they aren't, but I'm really not seeing any debate about having sources that spend significant ink covering the topic. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently sourced article to meet the notability criteria. I agree with Dimadick. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes, as per Argento Surfer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - of the sources, they all are either indiscriminate collections of information, explicitly describe Captain Flag as "obscure" and "secondary", don't mention them at all, or are unarchived and therefore inaccessible. If Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then why are we sourcing from indiscriminate collections of information? It just doesn't make much sense. casualdejekyll 20:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability on Wikipedia is a term of art that indicates if the WP:GNG or appropriate WP:SNG is met. Lots of detailed sources that call something "obscure" or "secondary" are better than a handful of sources that say "important" or "primary". Hobit (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My argument here is based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is an explicit exception to GNG, and I quote: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." (Emphasis mine.) casualdejekyll 22:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Still the same problem as I see it. What makes this "indiscriminate"? The fact that some sources have used the term "obscure"? See WP:NOTPAPER. This isn't a database or something else that WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists. I'm not sure how your !vote isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The key is we have sources. That you don't consider the issue of import isn't very relevant. Even if the sources consider it minor, that's not something our inclusion guidelines really care about. Hobit (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So, we're not allowed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but we're allowed to build an article based almost entirely off of sources that ARE Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE (the only exception as far as I'm aware being ref 4). That's what you're saying here, at least. Note that as far as I can tell, all sources are simply just "Summary-only descriptions of works" (quote from, who would have guessed, Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE). If the only thing you can source is a summary-only description of the work, then how are you supposed to cite any statement that isn't a summary only description of the work? casualdejekyll 00:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • They really aren't. They include publication dates, authors and other things. The article, as it stands, is short, but covers lots of non-plot things. So can an article be written with our sources that isn't struggling with being pure plot? Yes, we have one. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Lots of non-plot things? Please name them. The only non-plot coverage we have is publication history, which is simply verifying the existence of the topic in the real world. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes the two paragraphs we have in publication history and the two paragraphs that form the lead are all non-plot. That's more than enough for a reasonable article. People claiming that the sources we have can't support anything other than plot are shown to be wrong by the existent article. Hobit (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe what Piotrus is asking for when he says "non-plot things" would include reviews of the material, analysis of the character's impact on other heroes, the relationship between this material and the creator's other works, or something notable from the publication history that's unique (or close to it). Since the publication date and creators can be sourced from the comic book, sourcing them from third party sources doesn't add anything to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            @Argento Surfer Indeed. It's also common sense that any plot summary can be pointlessly padded with information about publication history in real world of the work it appeared in. That, however, doesn't make that work notable - it's just a WP:CATALOGUE-type of addition. Notability has to be shown through sources that treat the subject as important enough to discuss beyond a pure catalogue-like mention. Which is why the relevant policy is called WP:NOTABILITY not WP:EXISTENCE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Archie Comics. Maybe make a new section and title it "Miscellaneous Superheroes"? Fix it up a little, and rephrase the information in ways that are varied from the sources of information. I don't recommend removing information simply because it is obscure, but if it has any value. If the aforementioned "Captain Flag" article is not relevant to the comic publishers history, or doesn't contribute any worthwhile information, then I agree that you should delete it. However, obscure information has just as much place on this site as not obscure information because who is to say that it is any less useful than the most commonly known information out there? I advise that we stay wary and don't jump the gun when an article doesn't have popular information. GoofyDonut (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes as there is not enough to indicate notability of this fictional character separate from the larger cast of Archie Comics characters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Captain Flag is listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica along with others. [34] Just the name, nothing else about him. Newspapers.com shows results to sort through at [35] but apparently my account expired. I just went to the Wikipedia Library page [36] and clicked the button to request to "extend" it. Anyway, from the sources already found, I say notability is already proven. If anyone has a working account to a newspaper search site, you can surely find more. Dream Focus 17:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, you found one trivial mention, sources which you are not willing to look and are not even sure exist, and no rebuttal to the argument that the article fails the relevant NOT policy concerning fictional topics (which in turn invalidates notability altogether)? Avilich (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too am doubtful that a passing mention in Britannica and a search result (which may or may not be related to the character) could address the concerns discussed above. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment made by Hobit is a rebuttal to your argument. No need to just repeat what others have said. And I said the existing sources found and mentioned by others was enough to convince me, I just pointing to where even more things can be found should any have access. Some of the summaries that appear from search results for "Captain Flag" and "comic" are about the character. Dream Focus 22:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Piotr's counterpoint above. Which of the sources do you think provides the in-depth coverage required to meet WP:GNG? MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Fulda[edit]

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

Potentially notable, but fails WP:NPROF. Possibly meets WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creepTalk 03:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think Cunard may have misunderstood the usefulness of reviews and their relationship to WP:NAUTHOR? Reviews of an author's work do not need to contain biographical coverage - indeed, it would be very strange for an academic review to do so. However, it is also strange that an academic this frequently quoted in news media, etc, only has a handful of reviews for any of his three books. I'm the one who added the reviews to the article; when I first saw it, I was expecting to find a clear NAUTHOR pass since there were three books there, but they're pretty under-reviewed, and one of them isn't a monograph. I held off on voting either way at first because this looks very borderline. But on reflection, I don't think there is any clear purpose in deletion here: this is a borderline case that will almost certainly become more notable as time goes on, and the article is short but not in bad shape. I don't see a hugely compelling argument in either direction, really. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your analysis, Asilvering (talk · contribs). Striking my comment and supporting keep per WP:NAUTHOR, a guideline that I am not well-versed in. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't think this is an obvious WP:NAUTHOR pass either; but unlike many of the other guidelines, that one allows for significant coverage (or citation) of an author's work to count for notability, rather than significant coverage of the author themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep under WP:NAUTHOR, not WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly does not meet WP:NPROF, and I don't think he passes NAUTHOR either. One of the reviews is for an article, not a book, which appears on the website of the same publisher which published the journal the article was in. So I would question the independence of that review. Onel5969 TT me 12:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which review are you talking about? I could try to resolve this but the only reviews I see are for books so I'm not sure what you mean. -- asilvering (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st one. Yip, possibly a paid review or at the very a least conflict of interest. I think it probably makes it suspect at the very least and unreliable. scope_creepTalk 09:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm still lost. I only see reviews footnoted for the three books. It would be extremely unusual for someone to write a review for an article in any case. But I'm also laugh-sobbing at the idea that academics get paid to write reviews for books (books that you also, typically, do not get paid for writing). -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is too low a bar by any measure to satisfy WP:NPROF and GScholar isn't used for WP:SIGCOV or WP:NAUTHOR. A simple measure on GScholar to determine if he was notable, if he had more than five papers with more than 100 citations for NPROF. The only measure that counts here is the book reviews. NAUTHOR requires independent book reviews. There is one that is idependent, one is bit dodgy, and likely unreliable. If another review turned up, then it would be good start for notability, but it has not been found yet. I don't think it will. It seems to be be below borderline. scope_creepTalk 11:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Can you please link the exact review you're talking about for me, since I'm still at sea here? I think this might be a misunderstanding of how academic publishing works - editorial boards of journals are not terribly beholden to the publisher, and indeed academics don't often think of who the publisher even is for journals, at least in the humanities. (You do care when it comes to a book... usually. But as someone working for an academic press, I've been told (reasonably politely) to go to hell by an ed board before. It's the board and the peer reviewers who decide what gets published, much much more than the publisher.) But you may indeed be correct and be seeing something I've overlooked, in which case we should probably pull the review link entirely. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st above. Both the book and review have been published, by the same publisher. It is not independent. scope_creepTalk 18:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in @Cunard's post? That's not the case. The review is in a Brill journal, and the book is published by Routledge. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are appearing on the same, not published by. So far they're is only one reliable reference. scope_creepTalk 09:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON. The best case appears to be through WP:NAUTHOR, as is unsurprising in what I believe to be a "book field". I see two solid reviews of authored works, one of an edited volume, and one review/interview on the New Books Network. I think that New Books Network is probably somewhat reliable (with usual caveats about interviews), but I don't think it's the kind of review discussed by WP:NAUTHOR; edited volumes are different from authored works. I'd like to see at least one more solid review of an authored work. Mentions in context of his work seem a little short of WP:GNG. I'm not seeing WP:NPROF, as others have discussed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The more academic profiles in Wikipedia, the more informitative Wikipedia is. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bosley John Bosley: They are articles not profiles. Don't use the word profiles, if you wish to remain on Wikipedia. Saying such a thing as that, makes me think that you undeclared paid editor. scope_creepTalk 13:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...er...WP:AGF...check my edits dude - who would be paying me?...and for what? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The book reviews are enough for at least a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, and the Radio Free Asia "Concerns Grow" source has a six-paragraph section about him, which I think rises to the level of nontrivial coverage. More coverage is hard to find but in part that's because it's obscured by the many publications that are by him rather than about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion of whether there's a confict between the journal and the book's publishers, which does not appear to have been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I find the focus of the deletionists here on independence of publishers and the reiteration of this focus in the relisting comment by User:Star Mississippi to be completely baffling. The article does not list any reviews that match the imagined descriptions of the deletionists here: there are no reviews of articles, and there are no reviews that have the same publisher as the thing they review. The article in its current state (unchanged since Feb.9) lists four book reviews: [17] published by New Books Network about a 264-Routledge book, [18] published by Brill about the same Routledge book, [19] published by U. Chicago Press about a 311-page Palgrave Macmillan book (edited), and [20] published by the Arnold Bergstraesser Institute about a 277-page Springer book. There is not even an apparent conflict of interest. In all four cases the publisher of the review and the publisher of the book are unrelated, and the page counts make it clear that the reviewed items are books and not mere articles. When asked for clarification on which review was meant, Onel only produced more unclearness: "Yip" (a name not used in any of these reviews), and "the first one" (of what ordering?) We cannot base a deletion discussion on made-up facts that do not match anything in the article or the rest of the world. Opinions based on these untruths should be discounted, just as we normally discount deletion opinions that are disconnected from our notability guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking purely to my statement, it didn't look like @Scope creep's query was answered. And note, NeverTry is a blocked editor so that conversation definitely needs input from established editors and Bosley's keep is not at all policy related. If I had closed, it might have been n/c, but I didn't feel confident in that standing, hence the relist. No harm in more time. Star Mississippi 14:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: I'm wasn't sure if he is notable or not, hence the Afd rationale above. I think with four genuine reviews, the subject is likely notable. I tend to trust David Eppstein as he knows what he is talking about, in this instance. I originally looked at them and wasn't sure. Regarding the comment above, I don't think there was any attempt to make up facts, as that is the whole point of Afd, is to ferret them out and make them visible so they can discussed. Lastly Yip means Yes in British English. I thought originally the first review that was coied, but even with three others it would be more than enough. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely. My concern was whether your question was answered. I haven't reviewed the sources as this is a complicated (in a good sense) discussion and I haven't had time to dive. If folks happy with this closing, happy to revert my relist. Star Mississippi 15:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi for what it's worth, I think your no-consensus instinct is sensible. There are more keep votes than delete votes, and once you cut through the confusion about the publishers the delete votes are pretty weak, but the keep votes don't have really strong arguments either, and it's been a pretty confusing AfD, as you say. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OnTheClock (web app)[edit]

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

Every reference here is their own advertising, or a mere listing basedd on their advertising. No indication ofany actual importance or non- promotional coverage DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn for reasoning given by Eggishorn. Suitability of article to be re-considered when Wikipedia has better access to sources in the .ru domain (which cannot currently be done due to current events). (non-admin closure) Singularity42 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Masodov[edit]

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

This is an article about a person who may or may not exist (which the article upfront about). All sources cited appear to be blogs. There may be more reliable non-English sources out there, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (from the article creator): I paid attention to this way "Find sources: "Ilya Masodov" – news" After that, Google suggested me some distinguished and reliable sources in Russian which not appear to be blog. Most definetely. So I changed my sources to more reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litvinchechka (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - the equivalent Russian article is quite substantial with more references. My Russian is not good but I'll look further. The apparent problem here may be more to do with the creator's English skills. Ingratis (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (from the article creator): I admit that, my English isn't great. Speaking of the article and the Russian one in particular. If you research the sources the Russion one you can see I used other resources which aren't used in Russian version. So esentially it's not total translation even though I use the main poins from there to be sure.
Thank you for clarifying. I'm very sorry for my clumsy phrasing. All I was thinking of was that it's a bit daunting to translate a long article into another language in which one isn't fluent, but (not for the first time) I missed the point. Ingratis (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Inability to identify the real name of an author is no bar to notability, if they've been discussed in WP:RS. Compare the 18th century British pampleteer Junius (writer), who has never been identified; there's even a standalone article, Identity of Junius, on the problem. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (from the article creator): Well, with regard to inability to identify the real name of an author, we can only rely on Dmitry Volchek's words. He states and insists on Ilya Masodov is a real person. So now I guess the main question if we can trust to Dmitry Volchek's words. He's quite distinguished journalist and the editor-in-chief of Radio Free Europe in Russia. https://www.svoboda.org/contact (Дмитрий Волчек Главный редактор сайта Русской службы)
  • Comment. To clarify, my AfD nomination is not based on the existence versus non-existence of a person by this name. We have articles on other artists who cannot be named (see Banksy as an obvious example). The fact of the lack of provable identify could be notable. Or the artist could be notable for their work. Or both. I was just unable to identify reliable sources to support the notability. As a non-Russian speaker, I had concern about the Gorky media references, as they appear to be blogs with little editorial oversight. There's one or two other references that I can't tell if they are reliable sources or not. I'm not withdrawing the AfD yet, but would be interested to see if other experienced Russian editors can chime in. Singularity42 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In fact, in Russian Wikipedia, there are no more references than in this version, but many respected and famous people who take their place in Russian Wikipedia speak about the character of the article.Faskat (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Faskat[reply]
  • Keep The sources are good enough. The genre is rather underground. That's why not many publishers dare editing his works. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more discussion would be helpful. Wonder if we could find some bilingual contributors to expand on the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would ask Singularity42 to withdraw the nomination for the time being. I don't think the nomination was in any way faulty but at the time of the nomination there was no way to predict that searching for Russian sources would become almost impossible. I can see indexes that indicate there might be content about this author in .ru domains but for obvious reasons getting to those resources is, well, spotty. There's really no harm to the project in leaving this article in main space for now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 02:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opontia[edit]

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

2021 startup. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All we have are the current sources which seem limited to press releases and their rewrites about company securing funding and doing some investments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This a copy-and-paste text from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeWelcome_(2nd_nomination) --Geysirhead (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read both carefully you'll see it isn't a copy and paste. But so what even if it was? For other editors, just be aware that Geysirhead is bludgeoning the AfD at BeWelcome, edit warring (and was blocked less than a month ago for the same thing) at BeWelcome, and now stalking and harassing me for the temerity of !voting to delete an article (that this person never edited before but suddenly is showing a deep interest) at AfD. Hmmmm .. something strange here. HighKing++ 18:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-pasting comments (look their contributions) without researching is not ok. Please, provide some proof of your research on Opontia. And please discuss the arguments of Caphadouk and Adil Faouzi in a reasonable manner. Then, we can be in good faith again. Thank you in advance.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a pretty petty and absurd comment. If you bothered to check my contributions properly you'll see I always do my research and read all the references and search for more and often provide a breakdown of every reference and the reasons why I believe it fails NCORP. If you genuinely were commenting in good faith you'd already know that. If you wish, go ahead and open an ANI but comments like this at an AfD (and the ones on my Talk page) are not only irrelevant but disruptive. HighKing++ 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: current citations are good for notability, although some news are about fundraising, most contain also info about the company and are in-depth. Chelokabob (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough sources to establish WP:CORPDEPTH.--Geysirhead (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The volume of references is largely irrelevant for the purposes of establishing notability so long as there exists a minimum two that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Doesn't matter if there's 1,000 references and they're all regurgitated press releases or company announcements. Also for the sake of argument lets assume (unless an obvious blog or something) that references appear in "reliable" sources - editors trying to argue that an article in the NYT or TechCrunch must automatically confer notability on the topic company are mistaken. As per WP:SIRS, each individual reference must meet the criteria - each reference must contain in-depth information on the topic company and also contain "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet NCORP as follows:
For those saying that references exist that meet the criteria, please provide links to WP:THREE references which you believe meet the criteria and a short explanation on why (or in the alternative, why the reasoning above is incorrect). HighKing++ 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the toughtful analysis. I hope the closing admin will remember WP:AFDNOTAVOTE... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more analysis of source quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I find that there are enough quality sources to establish notability even though some of them are interviews. The fact of being written in big business medias and giving in-depth analysis with no promotional tone leads me to think that it deserves Wikipedia page.--Art&football (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources? BTW, you realise that even though some of them are interviews is an admission that those references fail WP:ORGIND, right? HighKing++ 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for further discussion of source quality, not quantity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Looks like there is enough coverage to be notable. Regarding [37] and [38], editor before said they are based on interviews,  but if they are not interviews and they dont contain too much quotations, then they are acceptable. As far as I am aware, if the journalist writes a story based on an interview then it is acceptable as it is considered verified and researched. Many articles are about funding, but I found that they contain details about the company which make them in depth. I also don't agree with editor before that an article based on an announcement is not acceptable. It is acceptable as long as they didn't just post what the company press release provided, but added their own commentary and info, meaning it is vetted and researched to be accurate.  Also, the company is ranked #12 in top 50 Middle East companies by Forbes. Zeddedm (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company seems comparatively new, but judging from the references available and the acquisitions, it appears to pass NCORP. As far as the definition of secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY we have "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources" which makes the references like Techcrunch and Reuters written by staffs of respective media secondary. So these are acceptable independent content and are definitely not primary sources. Only press releases and company produced contents aren't acceptable references as per WP:ORGIND. Although the article may need pruning as it mentions few unimportant events/facts like "Opontia buys and grows e-commerce brands in the CEEMEA (Central & Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa)". Cirton (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. One user is making energetic efforts to demonstrate notability but this has failed to gain traction with other commenters who have addressed the arguments in detail. Spartaz Humbug! 16:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Agbarakwe[edit]

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

not yet notable. Received minor awards for "youth activism", which is a polite way of saying that people think she might one day be notable. The references are either mere notices, or promotional "interviews" such as the one in Bellanaija, where she talks about herself and why she thinks she's importanty. The interviewer just gives her a platform to promote herself and her causes DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Beccaynr, I note you mention Bellanaija, please bellaNaija is not only an unreliable source, it is a very unreliable source. It was a gossip blog, then morphed into “true journalism” even at this, it is self published, haven’t developed a reputation for fact checking and have 0 editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Celestina007, I was unfamiliar with Bellanaija, and I had overall tried to focus on sources that appear to regard her as an expert, which from my view, is a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary that supports her notability. Even without Bellanaija, I think there still is support for notability per WP:BASIC, which allows multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability with the exception of trivial coverage. What I found indicates she has achieved more recognition for her work than awards, and at least one award has its own independent recognition, which from my view, helps support to her notability. I rarely invoke WP:IAR, but for this article, I think the potential for expansion with reliable sources would improve the encyclopedia if the article is kept and further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think its a misrepresentation to describe the awards as minor. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regarding the sources mentioned by Beccaynr: the three (1, 2, 3) Guardian sources are literally just her name + a comment from her or a 1-line blurb, and should be treated as a single source anyway since they're all from the same newspaper's panel and two of them are even by the same reporter. Being on an "expert panel" is not a criterion for notability, and as the coverage of her in these pieces is strictly non-independent save for the 1-sentence description they should not be considered for meeting even BASIC. The HuffPost article (4) only devotes three sentences to her, two of which are summarizing quotes. The Chicago Tribune article (5) is just a 16-word intro and 4 sentences of direct quotes or summaries of quotes from her, and is therefore not independent. The UN ref (6) does not contribute to notability as it is not independent (it's covering its own event). The UNICEF report (7) is a single-sentence quote in an article covering a forum she took part in--not independent. The ProShareNG source (8) is written by her--not independent. Pulse.ng (9) is almost entirely quotes from a press release she issued on behalf of the Minister of Environment relaying the topics discussed at a shareholder meeting: she is acting here strictly in her position as Special Assistant to the Minister, so this article is neither independent (it is primarily quotes) nor an example of her being treated as an expert (as it is just a recap of a ministerial discussion). I can't access the allAfrica article (10). The Eagle Online (11) is also just quoting her on how a meeting went between the Nigerian Youths Climate Group and President Buhari: not independent, and not her acting as an expert in an academic capacity. The Premium Times article (12) is by her--not independent. UGWire (13) is an un-bylined list of the publication's "top 10 most powerful women in Africa 2021" with a blurb on each entry; Ms Agbarakwe's is almost a direct copy-paste of a 2012 Nigerian Youth Hall of Fame biography submitted by her. The DailyPost ref (14) is just her name in a list--a trivial mention.
The LEAP Africa Nigerian Youth Leadership Awards is definitely not a notability-granting honor, for the same reasons other national youth awards are not considered sufficient for ANYBIO and do not count towards even partially satisfying criteria for NACADEMIC. The small number of sources quoting her as an expert are also not contributory to notability, as NACADEMIC C7 requires the subject be an academic expert acting in their academic capacity. Climate advocacy is not an academic venture by itself and being interviewed for one's experiences as an advocate is not the same as being regarded an "academic" for the purposes of C7 notability, as this requires being known for one's professional scholarly research.
The references on Wikipedia are not any better: BellaNaija is not a reliable source, and the rest that aren't trivial mentions are either blogs or released from organizations she is involved in and therefore non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per extensive rationale by DGG, as a master of dissecting Nigerian sources, I can expressly say almost all sources or pieces used in the article are all non reliable Nigerian sources, half the sources used have no reputation for fact checking, the other half have no editorial oversight (self published) and the remaining which are good sources published unreliable pieces, such as guest editors, indicative of an opinion piece or a sponsored post(depending on tone, you can tell the difference) Infact they make use of quintessential bad op-ed sources as they fail to attribute it to an established expert author in the relevant field in all this is subtle promotionalism Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have only started to review sources via the Wikipedia library, but coverage of Agbarakwe and her work seems to appear frequently, e.g. Nigeria: Advocates for Positive Change (AllAfrica, 2018, via Gale, "it was during that journey he met Esther Agbarakwe with whom he founded International Climate Change Development Initiative in April 2013. Popularly known as Climate Wednesday, the NGO aims to "amplify the voice of young people in the areas of health, education and environment.""), Vlisco Celebrates Women With Dare to Dream (AllAfrica, 2014, via Gale, "These women blaze the trail in media, development and health sectors, breaking the bounds of stereotypes and becoming inspirations for younger women."), The Future Awards Africa 2013 Holds in Port Harcourt Friday (AllAfrica, 2013, via Gale, "The Future Awards Africa 2013 Best 100 are: [...] Esther Agbarakwe"), Girls Are the Future, Digitally (AllAfrica, 2013, via Gale, "...says Esther Agbarakwe, an activist using technology to inform young people on anything from climate to justice and human rights. [...] Agbarakwe stoutly defends more ICT for girls."), Youths Hold Climate Workshop On the Hills And Art and Crafts Exhibition (AllAfrica, 2011, via Gale, "...said Esther Agbarakwe, founder and National Co-ordinator of Nigeria Youth Climate Coalition (NYCC).") Beccaynr (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AllAfrica is a news aggregator, we would need to see the actual sources to assess reliability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll plan to review the sources in more detail later to address this issue. Beccaynr (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment via ProQuest: "Women Impacted by Climate Change - But Not as Victims" (AllAfrica, 2011, "...says Esther Agbarakwe, who grew up in the Niger Delta and heads the Nigerian Youth Climate Coalition. [...] continued Agbarakwe, a climate change expert at the UN Climate Talks in Durban (COP17).") "Yemi Alade, Falz, Tekno Make Future Awards Nominee List" (AllAfrica, 2016, "CATEGORY 12: The Future Awards Africa Prize in Public Service [...] Esther Agbarakwe, 31"). And according to Gale, AllAfrica is also more than an aggregator, i.e. "aggregating, producing and distributing news and information from over 140 African news organizations and our own reporters to an African and global public." Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
therefore, to judge whether any particular item is a RS, one must examine it specifically and not just judge by the overall title. (The descriptions in Gale, btw, are largely written by the publishers of the works it covers). DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would note being quoted as a participant at various conventions, in the coverage of those conventions, is different from being sought by newspapers specifically as an independent expert on a topic. But anyway NPROF doesn't apply here and I'm not aware of other notability criteria that take "being quoted in RS" into consideration, so the quoting should be treated like an interview and not contribute to notability unless independent, secondary SIGCOV is provided as well. I don't think a neutral biography can be written if we don't have any significant written commentary on the subject that isn't just listing CV material. She has an impressive resume, but I'm still not seeing the coverage to distinguish her from other environmental activists. JoelleJay (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And let's look at the nature of her actual roles on which the "awards " are based: ...participated in ...joined the Guardian conversation ...on the sidelines of...alongside other ...co-founded... one of the four ...participated in ...an Adviser to... works in the .... The only 2 actual claims to leadership roles are "founded the Nigerian Youth Climate Coalition" & "chair person for the General Assembly of ActionAid Nigeria" (neither of which are notable organisations)
and consider the stage of her professional development: studied Chemistry Education ...currently concluding a Master's programme in Corporate Communications ... .
Based on the sources cited in this discussion, she was nominated for The Future Awards in 2012, 2013, and 2016, and also served in an official role in the Nigerian government from 2016 through 2018. She has been cited as an expert in a variety of sources, and quoted for her opinion in ways that appear independent, and her leadership roles have also been reported as recognized by President Buhari in 2019, included in UN proceedings, as well as a report published on JSTOR. I do not think random quotes lined up in the comment above detract from the accomplishments recognized by an array of sources over time, which objectively support her WP:BASIC notability. There also does not appear to be a need for her to independently meet WP:NPROF in addition to the recognition she has received for her work, and this does not seem like a promotional situation, as she does not appear to be selling anything nor promoting herself, but instead participating on a national and global level in climate change activism. When I have more time, I still plan to look more closely at the sources I added earlier to try to sort out the AllAfrica sources, but without further information, there does not appear to be a reason to doubt the description on Gale that AllAfrica employs journalists. Beccaynr (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created a source assessment table to summarize points above, to sort AllAfrica sources, and to add an explanation for WP:ANYBIO notability:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Youths Hold Climate Workshop On the Hills And Art and Crafts Exhibition (Daily Trust/AllAfrica, via Gale, 2011) Yes Yes See WP:NGRS via WikiProject Nigeria, "National print newspaper with online component". Article is bylined. ~ "The Nigerian Youth Climate Coalition (NYCC) which aims to inspire, empower and unite young people around a vision of a cleaner and fairer future, in collaboration with GreenBack Nigeria, organized a workshop" is context for the focus of the article, and her statements are contextualized as "Esther Agbarakwe, founder and National Co-ordinator of Nigeria Youth Climate Coalition (NYCC)", which is more than trivial coverage and therefore support for WP:BASIC notability ~ Partial
13 tips on building a coalition to tackle climate change (Guardian, 2013) Yes Yes ~ "How do you foster effective cross-sectoral cooperation to end climate change? Our expert panel suggests" is WP:SECONDARY commentary on "Agbarakwe, founder, Nigerian Youth Climate Coalition, Abuja, Nigeria" and therefore more than trival coverage and support for WP:BASIC notability ~ Partial
Girls Are the Future, Digitally (Daily Trust/AllAfrica, via Gale, 2013) Yes Yes See WP:NGRS, "National print newspaper with online component". Article is bylined. ~ Context for her statements includes "says Esther Agbarakwe, an activist using technology to inform young people on anything from climate to justice and human rights" and "Agbarakwe stoutly defends more ICT for girls." This is more than trivial coverage and therefore supports WP:BASIC notability ~ Partial
15 ways to powerfully communicate climate change solutions (Guardian, 2015) Yes Yes ~ "Our panel share their suggestions" links to a description of "an expert panel", which is WP:SECONDARY commentary on "Agbarakwe, founder, Nigerian Youth Climate Coalition and #ClimateWednesday, Abuja, Nigeria" and therefore more than trival coverage and support for WP:BASIC notability ~ Partial
Climate Activists Call For Greater Diversity Of Voices At The Table In Paris (HuffPost, 2015) Yes Yes ~ This is more than a trivial mention due to the independent context for her statements, including her work generally as a climate activist and specifically with the Africa Initiative of Youth on Climate Change and the Nigerian Youth Climate Coalition, and therefore contributes support to WP:BASIC notability. ~ Partial
La planificación familiar es una buena forma de combatir el cambio climático (Chicago Tribune, 2011) Yes Yes ~ Her statements are introduced with "Esther Agbarakwe, founder of the Nigerian Youth Climate Coalition, has worked with youth around the world" (Google translation), which is independent context for this report on a UN climate change conference, and adds support for WP:BASIC notability because this is not trivial coverage. ~ Partial
Climate change heats up threats to children (UNICEF, 2012), Youth speaking out about the future they want during UN High-level political forum on sustainable development, (Office of the Secretary General's Envoy on Youth, 2014) No UN offices reporting on UN proceedings Yes No While not directly contributing to notability per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, these verified activities help show her work is not WP:PROMO. ✘ No
Nigeria needs $142m to tackle global warming - Minister (Pulse, 2016) Yes Yes See WP:NGRS, "There's evidence of editorial oversight. Sponsored posts are marked "Featured post'" and this article is bylined. No Verifies her role as Special Assistant to the Minister of Environment on Communications ✘ No
#EvenItUp: Girls, Quality Education and Inequality, By Esther Agbarakwe (The Premium Times, 2016) No She is the author of this opinion article Yes See WP:AFSL, "reliable newspaper with an emphasis on investigative journalism and anti-corruption" No She includes some biographical information that could help develop the article. Bolded text at the end of the article states "She is the founder of SocialGood Nigeria, advisor to +SocialGood at the United National Foundations, Washington DC and also advisor to the African Youth Initiative on Climate change (AYICC)." ✘ No
Nigeria: World Earth Day - Nigeria Urges Citizens to Stop Plastic Pollution (The Premium Times, via AllAfrica, 2018, also available via Gale) Yes Yes See WP:AFSL, "reliable newspaper with an emphasis on investigative journalism and anti-corruption". Article is not bylined. No Verifies her role as a "media aide" for the Minister of State for Environment ✘ No
Lake Chad shrinking, population exploding – Buhari highlights Nigeria’s climate problems (Daily Post, 2019) Yes Yes See WP:NGRS "There's evidence of editorial oversight. Sponsored posts are marked clearly." This article is bylined. ~ "Buhari lauded the youths for representing Nigeria at UNGA as Climate Change Champions [...] Esther Agbarakwe, one of the leaders of the youth group, said [...]" is independent context and more than trivial coverage that supports WP:BASIC notability for her and her work. ~ Partial
CHAPTER 2 Youth, civil society organisations and academia (Benkenstein, Alex, et al. “Youth, Civil Society Organisations and Academia.” Youth Climate Advocacy, South African Institute of International Affairs, 2020, pp. 21-22, via JSTOR) Yes Published by the South African Institute of International Affairs Yes Yes An in-depth overview of the work of the Nigerian Youth Climate Coalition since it began in 2014. ✔ Yes
The Future Awards 2012: The Full Nominees’ List (Daily Post, 2012) Yes Yes See WP:NGRS "There's evidence of editorial oversight. Sponsored posts are marked clearly." This article is bylined. value not understood This article helps support the notability of The Future Awards, e.g. "described by the World Bank as “The Nobel Prize for Young Africans”", so her nomination for this award in the "Best Use of Advocacy" category supports her WP:BASIC notability. ? Unknown
The Future Awards Africa 2013 Holds in Port Harcourt Friday (Premium Times/AllAfrica, via Gale, 2013) Yes Yes See WP:AFSL, "reliable newspaper with an emphasis on investigative journalism and anti-corruption". This article is bylined. value not understood This article further helps support the notability of The Future Awards, reporting e.g. a week of celebratory events began with an event "led by the Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan, represented by Vice President Namadi Sambo" and highlights the support of the Nigerian government for these awards. Her nomination for the 2013 Best 100 therefore supports her WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO notability, because she has been nominated for this well-known and significant award several times. ? Unknown
[Yemi Alade, Falz, Tekno Make Future Awards Nominee List] (Premium TimesAllAfrica, via ProQuest, 2016) Yes Yes See WP:AFSL, "reliable newspaper with an emphasis on investigative journalism and anti-corruption". This article is bylined. value not understood This third nomination for The Future Awards, in the Public Service category, further supports WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO notability. ? Unknown
Vlisco Celebrates Women With Dare to Dream (Vanguard/AllAfrica, via Gale, 2014) Yes Yes See WP:AFSL "national paper", article is bylined ~ "The Vlisco Women's Month Award, aims at honouring and celebrating outstanding achievements of West and Central African women by identifying and rewarding those who inspire others to realise their dreams. [...] These women blaze the trail in media, development and health sectors, breaking the bounds of stereotypes and becoming inspirations for younger women." The report on her nomination for this honor supports her WP:BASIC notability. ~ Partial
Nigeria: Advocates for Positive Change (AllAfrica, via Gale, 2018) Yes Yes According to the AllAfrica About page, "Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica." This article is bylined. ~ This article focuses on another activist, but includes "it was during that journey he met Esther Agbarakwe with whom he founded International Climate Change Development Initiative in April 2013. Popularly known as Climate Wednesday, the NGO aims to "amplify the voice of young people in the areas of health, education and environment."" This is more than a trivial mention due to the context reported about this work. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Beccaynr (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, I disagree in general with using the brief professional descriptions standard for people quoted in newspapers as evidence toward BASIC.
I also strongly dispute that more substantial commentary on a group she is part of, or value judgments of that group, can be considered coverage of her whatsoever, even towards BASIC. It's therefore extremely misleading to assess the SAIIA source as SIGCOV when it doesn't mention her once! Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, you absolutely cannot argue coverage of something she cofounded is coverage of her when there is zero biographical info on her.
The Guardian sources should be grouped together, and anyway are not independent coverage of her any more than the bio-blurbs accompanying any regular contributor to a newspaper. "Our panel" firmly suggests an affiliation similar to that of a correspondent and so removes any aspect of independence.
I would not call the Future Awards Nigeria "well-known and significant": if national youth awards could confer automatic notability absent SIGCOV, there would be no reason for NPROF to explicitly exclude youth academic achievements from even partially contributing to C1 or C2. With this in mind, I would say even the Future Awards Africa (which is what has been described as the "Nobel Prize for young Africans" -- this obviously doesn't apply to all TFAA franchises) would not be sufficient.
And the final AllAfrica source is almost the definition of a trivial mention; again, discussion of a group co-founded by someone is not coverage of that person. JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the table above, I tried to sort out the brief professional descriptions from articles that offer more context, by either excluding the articles from the table or marking them as not contributing to notability. I also think the in-depth coverage of the group she founded and coordinated helps show the notability of her work, and it directly responds to the nomination statement as well as concerns about promotionalism. She is mentioned in a footnote, which is unfortunately cited to Bellanaija, but that mention is how the source ended up in my results list. I also think there is a clear need for NPROF to exclude youth academic achievements, but WP:ANYBIO does not have an age-based exclusion for awards. I also found no indication she was nominated for franchise awards - the independent and reliable sources indicate this is a well-known and significant award, and that she has been nominated several times. And I think articles that add context and synthesis about her work create more than a trivial mention - for example, while a mere mention of her as a 'media aide' is trivial in the article it appears in and therefore does not support notability, when she is mentioned for her accomplishments and there is context, it seems like more than a trivial mention. I think particularly due to the variety of coverage over time and the verifiability of her achievements, WP:BASIC allows us to combine multiple sources to support an article. Beccaynr (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In-depth coverage of the group she co-founded cannot contribute at all to her notability if it does not discuss her. I saw that her BellaNaija article was cited in that article, but do not consider unannotated references to be "mentions".
NPROF excludes youth academic achievements, and it would not be able to require this if national early-career awards were considered acceptable outright by ANYBIO. Similar mandates are also seen at the SNGs for sportspeople and musicians. Additionally, I have not seen any indication that all recipients of those awards can be considered notable, let alone each of the 150+ nominees each year. In fact, someone who won/was a finalist three times and had more coverage than Agbarakwe was the subject of a lengthy and well-attended AfD that overwhelmingly resulted in deletion on notability grounds. The AfD nom statement for another unanimously-deleted TFAA nominee even stated being nominated for the Future Awards Africa and the City People Entertainment Awards doesn't qualify one for stand-alone inclusion.
The email address linked in the DP article listing nominees is @ thefuturenigeria.com, which seemed consistent with a Nigeria-specific rather than all-Africa focus (and there is an "Africa-wide edition" of TFAA) since the main website is thefutureafrica.com, but perhaps they changed their name...? @Celestina007 may have more insight.
A trivial mention is still a trivial mention, it doesn't become non-trivial through context provided in other sources. Otherwise BASIC would not require mentions be non-trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article for The Future Awards Africa, its website and the related website for The Future Project do not seem to indicate franchises exist, in addition to the sources noted in this discussion. The Dayo Israel AfD lacks support from independent and reliable sources, and for the significance/well-known nature of The Future Awards - there appears to only be a bare assertion he was nominated three times. In the nom statement for the Fisayo Fosudo AfD, it is asserted that one TFAA nomination is not sufficient, and that the sourcing is inadequate to support the notability of the YouTuber subject. I think Agbarakwe can be distinguished from these AfDs based on her achievements being found worthy of notice by multiple independent and reliable sources, and the support for the significance/well-known nature of her multiple award nominations. I keep referring to WP:BASIC because it allows for the combination of sources, and from my view, there are sufficient sources with enough context within the source to support WP:BASIC notability. Based on the available sources, I think an article can be developed that reflects a variety of independent and reliable sources over time finding her and her work to be worthy of notice. Beccaynr (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think applying your interpretation of BASIC would permit every assistant STEM/soc research prof at an R1 institution, and many postdocs, to bypass NPROF and receive an article. Being quoted as an expert and serving on panels is routine and expected in many areas of academia, as is your work being discussed in RS. This isn't satisfactory to meet NPROF, and it shouldn't be satisfactory for people who aren't academics, either.
This is the franchise page.
The sole keep !voter for Israel did provide links to TFAA nominee lists in 2007 and 2009, unfortunately the pages aren't up anymore. Their other link does verify being a finalist in 2007 for the major TFAA award (YPotY). I don't see how coverage of Israel like this (provided in the AfD, but the webhost changed from The Mirror to Modern Ghana) is so different from the source you claim is evidence of "support of the Nigerian government" for TFAA. One could just as easily argue the same for Israel's achievements (but on an international scale): Nigeria’s Former President and Co-Chair of the Commonwealth Africa Initiative (CAFI) Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, former UN Scribe Dr. Kofi Anan, and Africa Regional Director for GLEEHD Foundation/Commonwealth Africa Initiative Africa Engagement Director Ambassador Dayo Israel, were among the Key Guest at the recently concluded Commonwealth Day Service and Commonwealth Africa Summit activities in London in the presence of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. And this profile of him is far more coverage than all coverage of Agbarakwe combined, so I don't see how you can assert he lacked IRS. No one contested the reliability of it (and this source was addressed by at least two !voters), they just didn't find it sufficiently encyclopedia-worthy and rejected claims the aggregate sources met BASIC or ANYBIO.
The Fosudo AfD also rejects, as unreliable, a full interview/profile of him by what would appear to me to be an RS, indicating a lot more caution should be used with determining reliability of Nigerian newspaper sources. !Voters also dismissed a 6-sentence bio of him by YNaija as well as other sources interviewing him. JoelleJay (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One difference between the coverage of Israel and Agbarakwe is that the sources I included in the table above are either listed on the WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources List or the Wikiproject Nigeria Generally reliable sources for Nigeria-related information list, and the Mirror/Modern Ghana and the Youth blog are not, although the blog claims to be edited and written by journalists. Another difference is that there appears to be a far wider range of notice taken of Agbarakwe by independent and reliable sources over time. And the TFAA franchises appear to have begun in 2016, so at least the two nominations of Agbarakwe that preceded this date appear to be the all-Africa version of the award, as also confirmed by the sources listed above. And I do not think the NPROF comparison works well here, because Agbarakwe is an activist with noteworthy accomplishments and documented activities, and she has also held an official government position. She appears to have earned her WP:BASIC recognition due to successful organizing, advocacy, and experience, not based on her academic achievments. Beccaynr (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think academics have "noteworthy accomplishments and documented activities"?? And I do not see how having been an assistant to a minister is relevant here. All that is relevant is whether she has been the subject of significant independent coverage, and a collection of news blurbs briefly stating her position in the context of quoting her is not different in any way from those seen when quoting academics. Being one of 150+ nominated for a notable national young person's award is also not materially different from being nominated for a notable national early-career researcher award. If BASIC or ANYBIO could be met with these achievements we would have no need for the exclusions present in NPROF C7 or C2, nor would we have to clarify that winning a significant-but-not-Guggenheim-Fellowship-level senior academic award only "partially contributes" toward C1. JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main questions are what constitutes trival coverage per WP:BASIC, whether WP:ANYBIO can contribute support to notability, and whether the award nominations contribute to WP:BASIC notability. WP:NPROF is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline, so while an academic can be notable per guidelines other than NPROF, it does not appear that other guidelines are subject to the constraints of NPROF criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree those are the main questions. The reason I bring up NPROF is because its criteria are not supposed to be stricter than GNG/ANYBIO/BASIC; the whole reason it exists is because academics are not expected to receive sufficient SIGCOV in independent RS, and none of the NPROF criteria are intended to predict GNG. So if being quoted as an expert or as an event participant was sufficient for GNG/BASIC we would not need C7 at all (and we'd have an article on every sheriff and medical director from counties with 3+ newspapers...). And if winning or being nominated several times for prestigious early-career awards was sufficient for ANYBIO we would not need C2 and certainly wouldn't have the exclusionary language in C2 or C1. The purpose of those criteria is to permit articles on scholars receiving notable awards that don't satisfy ANYBIO and are not expected to generate SIGCOV of the recipients. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Groob[edit]

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

I would tend to question Mr Groob's notability. The article is ineligible for PROD because it was briefly prodded in 2011. —S Marshall T/C 00:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 00:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - IMDB is unreliable. Other link is dead. Google Search reveals routine online and social media mentions; Google Book Search showed a brief mention in CMJ New Music Report (25 November 2002) - not sufficiently significant coverage to warrant notability. Paul W (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMDb is unrealible, and we cannot use his own website as our only base for an article, and the one other source is junk as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One brief mention in a CMJ article about a CD he released with two other individuals, scant else for sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems non-notable, and sources present in the article are not reliable. Timetraveller80 (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of notability plus orphan page with nothing linking to it. Gusfriend (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_February_23&oldid=1075569485"