Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 17 March 19 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zech Zinicola[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Zech Zinicola (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)

Never made the majors, non-notable minor league career, good faith creation fails WP:NBASE. EDIT: I missed the previous AfD from a decade ago. I do not think WP:GNG is met here, it's all routine minor league ballplayer coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 18 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 12:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Larry[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elephant Larry (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 performing group; Mentions and quotes exist in online press but lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GROUP//WP:GNG. Previous AFD (in 2006) resulted in keep citing Google hits and listings on their now-defunct website. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through the news hits from above and there are 2 mentions, both just in passing. In the previous discussion (which could drive in most states) somebody mentioned that there were 57000 google hits, but I don't see anything that is specific and in depth enough to be used as a source. Rockphed (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 18 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. Consensus is the sources present do not overcome GNG/NPOL barriers due to quality Star Mississippi 02:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Singh Lalpura[edit]

Iqbal Singh Lalpura (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 politician who fails to meet any criterion form WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Failing NPOL does not provide grounds for deletion, it simply means the subject does not meet those specific criteria for presumed notability, not notability in general. Sources provided by Soman above satisfy passing of the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG Puglia1999 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reasons below:
  1. The Indian Express source says 'Express News service' and hence, not independent. IE is a reputed source and when they are not putting a byline, it means they don't want to take accountability of it.
  2. Same goes for Tribune
  3. Business standard says Press Trust of India. Not independent.
  4. Firstpost says FP Staff but in the end says 'inputs from agencies' which dilutes the independence. It means, some information was fed to FP that they used to write this. If it had some independent commentary, it could have been used to assert notability.
  5. NDTV is again Press Trust of India, likely to be fed by the party or his media team.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:40, 19 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. Star Mississippi 02:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four-part harmony[edit]

Four-part harmony (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)

Has been tagged for "expert attention" since 2015, further proving the uselessness of that tag. Disregarding that, the sources given are all music theory studies that can't even agree on what "four part harmony" even is. Furthermore, these seem to be worksheets and not reliable sources.

I've found tons of books using the term "four-part harmony", but none explaining it as a concept. As the talk page bears out, this has been the subject of heated discussion on Wikipedia since 2015, but it's just a bunch of people bantering back and forth about minutiae, not trying to improve the article. Attempts to synthesize it with related concepts such as counterpoint and barbershop quartet are unsourced at best and WP:OR at worst.

The concept of "four part harmony" does exist for sure, but there doesn't seem to be any scholarly or encyclopedic attempt to explain what it is other than "harmony with four voices". At best, this deserves a small section on harmony; as it stands, it's a completely muddled and incoherent WP:DICDEF Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final chorus of Giulio Cesare, 1723, British Library
  • Weak keep on the basis of subject matter. Four-point harmony is relevant to the four-part chorales of J. S. Bach, which are heard in his passions, oratorios and cantatas. The concluding four-point chorale harmonisations are described in each of the cantatas, e.g. Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105. There's also separate material on their history as well as a list-article. They're available in paperback version of Albert Riemenschneider. Similarly the operas of G. F. Handel usually end with a four-part chorus, e.g. Giulio Cesare, "Ritorni omai nel nostro core".[9] And so on. Mathsci (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, four-part harmony (as Andrewa mention above) serves as the basis for a lot of Western classical music, especially beginning with Bach's era as you probably know. This is the sort of stuff that's covered in Music Theory 101, so I don't understand why it needs deletion (aside from the poor article quality which another editor mentioned resolving through WP:TNT). Why? I Ask (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrewa: @Mathsci: I stripped the unsourced content and drive-by tagging ffom 2015, but the article is still in dire shape. Are either of you willing to put the leg work in? Because it seems so far, this is just turning into another endless loop of "We should do something!" "Should we do something?" "We should do something!" "Should we do something?" Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the material you've axed; but the article can still be salvaged by adding WP:RSs. Riemenschneider is an example, particularly for realising four-part harmony from melody + figured bass (the 69 chorales). There's also "Continuo Playing According to Handel: His Figured Bass Exercises" (ed. David Ledbetter). Please ask for input from User:RandomCanadian, who's recorded a four-part hymn on a Canadian organ. Mathsci (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I can't promise it will be my top priority, and if someone beats me to it that is likely, and good. We are a collaboration.
I note that you are the one who proposed this for deletion. But were we to delete it as you proposed, it would make Wikipedia a laughing-stock among those with any knowledge at all of the common practice period (another article needing work) and related music. Wikipedia is not perfect. We have made some colossal blunders over the years and continue to do so. Hopefully we can avoid this one. But as others have commented, this discussion has already diminished the reputation of Wikipedia.
Ask yourself, if you were someone with good knowledge and access to sources in this field of study, would this discussion encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia? Or would you think, hopeless, I'm not going to waste my time, just to see my work thrown away by those without the slightest knowledge of the field? It is that bad.
There are ways to develop and encourage our cadre of volunteer editors, so as to improve articles including this one. But this nomination was not one of them. If you wish to give editors such as myself more time to improve it and others, I suggest you consider simply withdrawing the nomination. Andrewa (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: TenPoundHammer withdrew the AfD a while back. However, Chris troutman edited twice to reverse TPH's closure, writing: "I see how the collective cowardice has begun as !voters shift toward what they think is emerging political consensus.". Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to simply note that the reversal was done under a wiki guideline, WP:WITHDRAWN, not completely opinion. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep − The term is covered in numerous books about musical theory: see here. Tim riley talk 16:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Apparently, the r/musictheory subreddit got wind of this [10]. I thought some of the comments were amusing, so here they are. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the article is currently of poor quality; deletion is not the appropriate solution to that, since the concept does warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tim riley. Grimes2 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per main arguments above. Also, re nom, if appropriate expertise isn't forthcoming, the answer isn't to say "well let's just delete it; it can't be that important". Atchom (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tim riley.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common enough musical term. Article is short, but there is no dearth of music theory books that deal with the concept and could be used to expand it. --Jayron32 12:43, 25 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Conheim[edit]

Peter Conheim (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. Sources are either passing mentions, primary sources, or other Wikipedia articles. Long list of work but WP:NOTINHERITED is in full force here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dave Emory: Most of the sources you added are a.) Discogs, which is user submitted and not reliable; b.) Blogspot blogs, also user-created content that is not reliable, or c.) primary sources. Good quality sources should be completely independent of the subject, such as news/journal/magazine/reputable website articles about the subject itself. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't see any reliable source coverage about this subject. The RS's that are cited are articles not about this subject, but simply tangentially mention him...but that's not coverage. Otherwise, as noted, the sources cited are blogs and first person. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:35, 19 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! 23:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Rabbit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nuclear Rabbit (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 criteria at WP:NBAND. Cannot seem to locate any significant, independent, reliable coverage online. -Liancetalk/contribs 21:49, 18 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SATB[edit]

SATB (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is about a non-notable initialism that isn't a concept in it's own right. Recommend redirect to Four-part harmony (even though there is probably a case for that to be afd'd as well.) — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No indication of notability that qualify subject for an article. -Liancetalk/contribs 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dictionary definition with no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article is linked to in hundreds of articles because it is the standard way to describe the voices of a choir, for example SSATTB for a choir of two soprano sections, one alto ... - Example: Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. - This article needs to exist, not be a red link to these hundreds of articles. If a redirect, what do you think about to where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    more than thousand links as I write this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    not only linked but looked up: recent views --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt: Thousands of incoming links don't mean that the term is notable. Several words and terms exist in the English language that don't need to be linked. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am concerned about two things:
    1. This is the professional way to describe a vocal scoring. Look at publishers' information, for example Polish Requiem, about the first thing you want to know about a choral piece: which voices? In this case SATB soloists and two SATB choirs. Most people will already know that without an explanation, but obviously several look it up regularly.
    2. These links should not turn red, and I don't see a good redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be out of place for an interwiki link or redirect to wiktionary:SATB? What's on the wiktionary page is essentially the main useful information on the current SATB page. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another term in your example is "mixed choir" which I decided to throw into the Wikipedia url bar. It brought me to Choir#Types and gave me a brief explanation of the concept. Surely SATB can function the same way. I think SATB could simply be re-directed to a section on some article that has a brief explanation of SATB. There already (sort of) is one at Choir#Types. I'm sure a short section could be added to Four-part harmony (that article needs to be basically re-written anyways). A small section on any other of the related harmony articles would probably be suitable too. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified project Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that this is a notable term used by music theorists and music publishers alike. While in its current state the article is nothing more than a expanded definition, there is definitely a considerable amount of research published about SATB. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a notable term, but I can't see evidence for it being a notable concept, or thing in its own. ("Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. ") Would you mind providing some sources to verify this? — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I see no good way of a redirect. Four-part harmony is not it, because it is a term also for single voices (in a larger work, singing after another) and seven-part harmony, for example. Compare the Schott listing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Four-part harmony: This is definitely an important term within the realm of music, but I don't think it will ever be more than a large dictionary definition. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not happy because this is not only for four parts, just the opposite: a convenient way to shortly describe other combinations, such as the typical Handel SSATB. We do need something to explain to readers who can't guess from the context. Also, that article is also under a deletion discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that four part harmony is currently listed, and I vehemently oppose it. I suppose you're right that SSATB and other configurations exist, but could those not be mentioned on the Choir article instead? I wouldn't mind keeping this page either, but merging and preserving the article's history seems to be best for now. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A reader who wants to know more about what SSAATBB stands for is served badly with a link to Choir, also it's used for the soloists as well. This concerns more than 1000 articles, so any change should be done with care, if at all. I don't see a problem with what we have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The terms would be referenced in a section of the of the Choir article (most likely Choir#types), and a redirect could be made to that specific section. A straight up copy of the text in the SATB article to the Choir article would suit me just fine. More pressing is the issue of the potential deletion of four part harmony. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a good topic and likely search term. Yes, it should probably be a redirect to a broader article. But deleting it and its history will not improve Wikipedia. This is part of a rash of related AfD nominations that stand not just to discourage knowledgeable editors, but to make Wikipedia a laughing-stock among those we most want to recruit to improve the pages. Andrewa (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Why. Add section SATB to Four-part harmony and redirect SATB. Variants SSATB (Five or more voice parts) could be mentioned. Grimes2 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proposed redirect would just make life needlessly hard for people trying to figure out what SATB is about and would affect thousands of articles for no discernible purpose (and redirects to article sub-headings have a nasty tendency to break). I especially agree with what Andrewa said. Atchom (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a reasonable topic, article cites sources, common musical term. --Jayron32 12:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I absolutely commend the editors who have improved the article since the listing of the AfD, bumping it from the 1-reference unsourced mess it was before. But, these additions don't change the fact that the article's topic doesn't pass WP:DICDEF. The new additions are mostly sourced from music publisher listings and not secondary sources, evidently failing WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The new additions would make a good section in the (also newly-rejuvenated) Four-part harmony or Choir#Types. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 22:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do think our readers should find the information which is linked in more than 1,000 articles? It's used also for more complex settings than four-part harmony. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously mentioned, the link would be redirected to a section in a different article, and all of the currently present information would be added. The readers would still find the information and the links would still work due to the redirect. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a dictionary Puglia1999 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or maybe with enough rewriting move to mixed chorus or mixed choir (why do those redirect to different sections?). Four part harmony seems to be about voice leading rather than a choral ensemble. Sparafucil (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Voice leading is fundamental in a SATB choral staff. Grimes2 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggested merges don't work for instrumental music, which is now in the article also. Many refs added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article isn't at all well defined, as the missing mixed chorus would be. The references so are all about pedagogical treatment of voice leading, but most incoming links would be better served by The Essential Bach Choir or an expanded Joshua Rifkin, if not OVPP. Sparafucil (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly we need a centralised place for the information which would otherwise have at least in part to be duplicated somehow in 1000 or so articles. This is one of the main points of a wiki - the ability to link to a single, thus consistent and maintainable, source of some widely relevant content and related background. Although music parts and articles designed for musicians don't normally need to explain SATB, as a standard term of art, we must do so for our general readership. An argument for merging could be that a lot of content would otherwise be duplicated in this and the target article, but nobody seems to be suggesting that. Just moving the content to a separate section in another article seems pointless information hiding. --Mirokado (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Yes exactly. More than 1000 links you say. I would state such things are core encyclopeadic knowledge. scope_creepTalk 14:12, 26 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 redirect to Belgium at the 1932 Summer Olympics. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Mund[edit]

Werner Mund (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)

Mund was a competitor in the Olympics who did not medal. We lack any significant coverage on him. I did searches in google, google books. google news and goolge news archive and come up with no sources that showed significant coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he died 4 Feb 1978, see https://de.geneanet.org/friedhof/view/8435834/persons/ (click on 2) if that helps finding anything. Nigej (talk) 20:04, 18 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! 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hylemetry[edit]

Hylemetry (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)

Doesn't appear to be notable. I couldn't find much in the way of secondary sources. I think this might be largely someone's pet project. PepperBeast (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Extremely limited coverage in independent sources (i.e. not published by Spagnolo) -Liancetalk/contribs 22:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was similarly unable to identify non-trivial coverage of this concept that hadn't been authored by Spagnolo. Without independent sourcing, it does not meet the GNG. No alternatives to deletion come to mind: we don't have an article on Spagnolo to redirect to, and there is no other possible target for a merge and/or redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and also a violation of our pilicies on neologisms. While the concept is reasonable enough, we shouldn't push pet names for topics until they have substantial independent adoption. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:08, 25 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 redirect to New York gubernatorial election#Libertarian. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McDermott (politician)[edit]

Michael McDermott (politician) (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Search of Google News and other search engines (per WP:BEFORE) failed to produce sources that satisfy the notability guidelines. While there are multiple citations of his gubernatorial run, several of them are primary sources and those that are secondary sources are routine campaign news coverage that is given to practically anyone who runs for office. There appears to be no credible evidence notability aside from his candidacy. Remember, WP:NPOL applies to politicians who have been elected to notable political office, not unelected candidates receiving run-of-the-mill campaign press coverage. A viable alternative to outright deletion would be to Redirect to 2014 New York gubernatorial election#Libertarian. Sal2100 (talk) 18:04, 18 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. even when discounting SPAs, it is clear that there is disagreement as to the level of sourcing and it is unlikely a consensus is going to form even with more time. Star Mississippi 19:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaush[edit]


AfDs for this article:
Vaush (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)

Has the notability of this subject improved since its nomination back in 2021? Certainly. Has it improved sufficiently to warrant for a WP:GNG? Unclear - leaning on a negative. Article seems to be reference bombed with sources either with trivial mentions, unreputable sources or run-off-the-mill youtuber reporting. nearlyevil665 17:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Vaush appearing in Newsweek and Reuters articles over his clash with JK Rowling could qualify as WP:1E - none of these sources seem to have significant coverage of him either way, they are mostly about how JK Rowling reacted and other text unrelated to establishing coverage on Vaush specifically. I'd be careful assuming notability as some editors have argued here based on the fact that Vaush's name appeared in the title of an article, instead I'd suggest looking into the depth of the actual content.

Keep He is a major part of BreadTube and there are other BreadTube figures with articles here on Wikipedia— Alecisbored111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Revising my argument in light of further consideration. Vaush is clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.

There is, first of all, more than enough reliable third party material to compose an article, as the existing reference list attests. This includes journalism by The Independent in which Vaush's career features as one of the main subjects; and coverage of online culture in which Vaush is obligatorily included alongside figures Wikipedia has deemed notable, e.g. coverage of the banning of Hasan Piker, Newsweek's coverage of a controversy involving JK Rowling, and coverage of Vaush's publicized debate with Charlie Kirk on the Tim Pool Show by The Focus. None of these constitute "triviality"; this isn't "Bill Clinton's high school jazz band" per the example in WP:GNG. Rather, in all instances the authors describe in relevant terms Vaush's political views and media presence.

Secondly, with the caveat that this is of course relative to other figures in his field, Vaush falls under the first criterion of WP:CREATIVE: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers." Within the media sphere, the capacity to appear equally alongside or to host other figures is a de facto signifier of relative notability. Tucker Carlson, for example, would never appear for interview on a small podcast; but a small podcaster could be interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Figures such as Charlie Kirk and Jordan Peterson will not, as a rule, publicly debate relatively unheard-of individuals, which is why, for example, Jordan Peterson and his agent chose to approach Slavoj Zizek, an extremely reputable academic, for his first debate versus a leftist. As a matter of record, Vaush's channel has hosted conversations with Kyle Kulinski [11] and Ana Kasparian [12]—among several others—and he has participated in a highly publicized debate with Charlie Kirk, as referenced earlier. With this in mind, the idea that Vaush is significantly less notable than those who are clearly within his professional reach, who have Wikipedia articles themselves, is ludicrous.

(Side note: I'm using WP:CREATIVE here because WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly inapplicable to much of modern online media. By its standards, a majority of very famous YouTubers and Twitch streamers would be non-notable as they have not played major roles in "multiple" media productions, since they are largely young individuals whose careers are encapsulated by a single source of content. These guidelines could use an update for modern times; until then we are of course obligated to use common sense per WP:IAR.)

It is also worth noting that Vaush's two YouTube channels currently garner more views per week than those of a directly comparable figure such as Destiny. Vaush's channels also have greater cumulative views—more than two times, in fact—than those of colleagues such as Abigail Thorn, ContraPoints, and Hbomberguy, who also have Wikipedia articles. According to WP:GNG, this should be a factor in consideration.

Regarding another editor's comments that the article has been "source-bombed" or possibly falls under WP:1E: An objective look at the references clearly disproves this. Vaush has been noted for more than one event. The cited coverage, as previously established, is not trivial on Wikipedia's terms. And the use of WP:SPS ("run-of-the-mill YouTuber reporting") is appropriate per WP:ABOUTSELF.

Ultimately, the the threshold for deletion is intrinsically subjective. However, what is not subjective is consistency; in fact, consistency of application is the only yardstick we have in this situation, ensuring fairness and impartiality for what can often be contentious subject matter. If deletion would call into question the validity of the articles of similarly sized or similarly reported-on figures, such as Destiny, Thunderf00t, and no doubt countless others, then those in favor of deletion, based on their stated threshold for noteworthiness, must choose one of the following: accept a double standard, or bite the bullet and advocate for a major purge of mid-sized media figures and even moderately recognized creatives etc. who have probably received similar levels of coverage. In the interest of fairness and practicality, I do not see the case for deletion. Humenni (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I just checked Bing News and found several headlines with "Vaush" in the headline. Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Multiple reliable sources give non-trivial mentions to Vaush. The Independent article is the best example of a high quality source giving in-depth coverage, but there is also the Washington Post which devotes a few paragraphs to him and quotes him in their article, the two Daily Dot sources for which he is the subject, and Knowles 2021 which has a paragraph on him as well as a few other mentions. The Focus and Newsweek articles may be more borderline sources, but they also give him in depth coverage which I think gives further support to notability. Overall, there is enough significant coverage to provide sufficient content for an adequate article without the need for original research. Therefore, I believe he meets GNG. However, if consensus ends up supporting the conclusion that Vaush doesn't meet GNG, then I believe the article should at least be converted into a draft as it definitely has potential and Vaush is likely to receive even more coverage in the future. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I never really like the concept of something being "noteworthy" enough to be on the encyclopedia of everything, but if the coverage of Vaush by Newsweek and Reuters lately hasn't cemented the fact that Vaush is a major voice in his field, I honestly am not sure that Wikipedia should be talking about any political YouTuber.––Nintenfreak (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vaush very much passes the notability criteria with him being covered by Reuters, Newsweek, and more. As well, since the original nominator mentioned problems with sourcing, this can be easily solved with a revision of the article. Thomasgilbertie1 (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)— Thomasgilbertie1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak delete. There are some news mentions, but I can't find anything about him specifically (WP:SIGCOV fails), just about a few indicents he was involved in. Also, I am concerned this is AfD is being keep-bombed by SPAs; it's very likely some form of off wiki(?) WP:CANVASSING is happening. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have concerns on SPAs. Saw a Reddit post last night on his subreddit with 450+ upvotes. There are some very old accounts here commenting on this, but they have very few edits. I'm unsure whether to tag them with {{spa}} or {{canvassed}}. SWinxy (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it is undeniably the case, as others have pointed out above, that this discussion has been brigaded, and that many !votes in favour of keep are flawed and not based on policy or objective evidence of sourcing. Nonetheless, I believe that the assertion that no policy or source-based arguments have been provided in support of keep, as some have claimed, is quite uncharitable. A number of sources do exist, as listed in the article, and a number of these devote a paragraph or more to coverage of Vaush. The problem is then in identifying which are high enough quality sources and which of these genuinely do give in-depth coverage and not just a paragraph of fluff for example. I believe there are actually quite a few sources of adequate quality that give non-trivial mentions to Vaush, and gave them in my vote, with specific reference to the quality of the sources and the depth to which they cover him. I'd also like to point out that Humenni argues that Vaush passes WP:NCREATIVE, which is also clearly a policy-based argument. Hopefully the closer will consider the strongest arguments for keep rather than looking over the clear brigading and concluding that there is no evidence of notability from the worst arguments in favour of keep. Alduin2000 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC) — Minor edits for clarity made at 13:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC). The diff can be viewed here.[reply]
  • Delete, WP:SIGCOV is not met, as noted by Piotrus. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and simply being mentioned in some sources is not a valid reason to keep. Crossroads -talk- 01:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to find even one reliable source that is significantly about him. Also, many of the (non-youtube) sources in the article don't seem to even mention him, and a few name-check him, but that's it. The twitter exchange with JK Rowling is not enough to establish notability, and is not substantially about this person. Lamona (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and Keep - @Lamona Did you read this source from The Independent which was already cited heavily in Vaush's article? This article extensively focuses on the Breadtube community while citing Vaush as a prominent member of said community, discussing his content as a libertarian socialist YouTuber, his origins as a content creator inspired by streamer Destiny, his various political opinions and his incidents stemming from his expression of said opinions (such as his ban from Twitch "after proposing the US invade Israel in defence of Palestinians" and his reaction to it - "Vaush reflects on the indefinite ban with a degree of levity and detachment. He sees it as him 'going too far criticising Israeli imperialism'. Though Twitch was previously his preferred medium, Vaush continues to gain viewers on YouTube."). A basic Ctrl+F search reveals that Vaush is cited 20 times throughout the article which constitutes to multiple paragraphs; specifically, about 800 words were dedicated solely to explaining who he is and his role in the Breadtube community. While the article does contain quotes directly from him, it still qualifies as a secondary source because the quotes directly from him are not only synthesized and analyzed, but also serve as transformative from a primary source. Vaush obviously isn't affiliated with anyone from The Independent making this an independent source (badum-tiss), the coverage is from a secondary reliable source, and per WP:INTERVIEWS - "At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful. In these interviews, the interview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts... if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline." This qualifies as investigative journalism that contributes to notability per these reasons above. Not to mention, his ban from Twitch in late 2021 alongside Hasan Piker, the JK Rowling incident, his controversy of justifying the use of the N-word which reliable source outlet The Daily Dot covered (along with another Daily Dot source, and this book slash scholarly article which covers him in over 30 pages goes far beyond one event territory.
EDIT: For whatever reason my first response was reverted for being disruptive despite clearly arguing in favor of Keep per WP's policies and guidelines and only replying in good faith to what I initially perceived as a poor WP:BEFORE search. So I'll rewrite my final thoughts. Reflecting on the first AfD, this article should've never been deleted in the first place; the existence of The Independent source clearly established significant coverage alongside the Daily Dot sources written around the same time the article was first deleted. The new sources proposed here clearly prove that Vaush is notable per WP:BASIC, and seeing as how the editors in favor of delete haven't thoroughly evaluated the sources the "Keep" editors seems like something of concern that needs to be addressed moving forward with this AfD. Anyway, I've stated my thoughts on the matter; I have no intention of bludgeoning this to the ground. I suggest also evaluating Humenni and Alduin2000's responses as well; they make a convincing argument as to why this should be kept.
(This is once again PantheonRadiance replying from an IP address. I apologize for some of my previous statements appearing not to be in good faith.) 2601:204:D981:8130:41BE:9D0F:9D72:2373 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)— 2601:204:D981:8130:41BE:9D0F:9D72:2373 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. I would hope for a source mainly about the man for my !vote to be stronger, but the man's opinions has been critique'd and responded to by professional journalists in the media, and he has been praised by two reputable academics for his optics (even if they did so for a single page in a journal). Additionally, his involvement with BreadTube, getting banned off Twitch as one of the few leftie streamers to do so, and his shit with J.K. Rowling has been the subject of reputable sources. Anyone interpreting any of this as just "trivial mentions" does not know how trivial mentions or what is trivia works. To quote WP:AVOID, which is an essay, "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." I think myself and a couple of the other Keep voters have made it more than clear the coverage is anything but non-trivial.
I will say this in the Delete side's defense, however. Certain parts of the article are too dependent on non-reputable newspapers college papers and uploads from Vaush that probably should not be there. Additionally, there is a lot of bad WP:GHITS arguments and WP:CANVASSING going on on the Keep side that is making it look bad, and an admin needs to get that resolved. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All the significant, reliable coverage appears to be WP:1E. Chumpih t 20:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Am swayed by user:Alduin2000's points. Chumpih t 12:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's been way more than one event Vaush has been covered for, making WP:1E not applicable. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 23:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the sources don't specifically talk about Vaush (passing mentions only), but only his drama with J.K. Rowling. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is disproven solely by the Independent article which puts Vaush in the context of his place in the broader BreadTube community, covering his beginnings in Destiny's community, the subsequent creation of his own stream and his philosophy concerning the presentation of his content, his debates with the alt-right, his banning from Twitch, his opposition to Bernie or Bust, and some of his other political beliefs. Even ignoring the Independent article, Vaush has been given coverage beyond a passing mention regarding multiple other events (controversy surrounding his use of the n-word, controversy surrounding his arguments about kink at pride, his second ban from Twitch, and his debate with Charlie Kirk). WP:1E arguments are clearly not applicable in this case, the only genuine argument to be settled here is whether or not he satisfies SIGCOV. Alduin2000 (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage of the subject and still falls under WP:1E. 2001:4455:364:A800:5DC:1FFF:D6C9:A8C7 (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a major part of online political discourse, and one of the largest political figures in youtube commentators. Sources are both abundant and reputable. --Homo logos (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I generally agree with JooneBug37, Alduin2000, and PantheonRadiance here; it seems that the available sourcing is adequate to get over the wiki-notability bar. The "only known for one event" concern is inapplicable because there have been multiple events. XOR'easter (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Humenni, Alduin2000, HumanxAnthro, and PantheonRadiance. All make a convincing case that the subject is a WP:GNG pass and not a WP:1E. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one hand, the article has improved from its state when it was deleted last year and includes much more reliable sources and informaion, but at the other time I think it feels only a small amount of those sources are talking about him directly. I'm personally neutral but I understand both sides Rlink2 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He's been mentioned in several academic papers and in several mainstream sources. X-Editor (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been over 7 days, are we getting a close soon? X-Editor (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is definitely not mentioned solely for a singular event (e.g. banned for using cracker, 'kink at pride'), but rather in addition to the wider context of BreadTube (e.g. The Independent) (WP:BLP1E and WP:1E). WP:SIGCOV passes: he is the subject of multiple sources (e.g. Reuters fact check and Newsweek). Sources are secondary and reliable and independent (e.g. Newsweek, Independent, Kotaku, Vox, WaPo...). SWinxy (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable given sources presented. Not convinced by WP:1E concerns and WP:BLP1E explicitly does not apply as Vaush is not otherwise a "low-profile individual". Elli (talk | contribs) 21:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not have any new insight to add here, as others have already covered the arguments that I would make, and have provided ample sources indicating that the subject easily meets WP:GNG. My vote is simply to indicate personal support of the arguments presented above. Yitz (talk) 18:28, 28 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 redirect to Kitsune#Portrayal. History is under the redirect if someone wants to selectively merge Star Mississippi 02:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsune in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kitsune in popular culture (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)

Redirect was contested. The page is a clear failure of WP:LISTN and an undue popular culture fork that is almost entirely WP:OR. Better off discussed in the parent article than here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ugh. What a mess. Hard case of WP:NOTTRIVIA. Could this be notable? Perhaps. Is there any indication of this in the current list of random works in which the theme appears? No. Do I think this listicle is salvageable? No. WP:TNT applies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft and listcruft. Dronebogus (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut out unsourced and merge what's left. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge where? Dronebogus (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And for that matter, merge WHAT? Dronebogus (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see ONE reference that actually, clearly discusses the creature in question and it’s not even a true Kitsune! Dronebogus (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and potentially G1 per stated above.PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G1 definitely doesn’t apply but that’s beside the point. Dronebogus (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might be thinking of WP:G4 Dronebogus (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes i was PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Puglia1999 (talk) 23:48, 25 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald (Thin Lizzy song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, with no chart success and no significant coverage. The song is mentioned in passing in the sources talking about the album. The pertinent material should be merged into Jailbreak (album) and this page should be redirected to Jailbreak (album). Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the nominator that it should be redirected. FBedits (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets NSONG and GNG with significant sources [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. May have been a B-side to "The Boys are back in Town", the band's biggest hit. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Eddy. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect It's a pretty Thin article and probably always will be. There's practically nothing about this song that can't be included at Jailbreak (album). Neither the fact that it was a b-side, nor that Frehley had a stab at it make it a notable song either. Most of the songs on Jailbreak have been covered at some time or another. I have every book source ever written about the band, and I'd still struggle to write an article with any weight. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I could work on expanding this article, as I feel there is still some to be added. If you have book sources, that's great, since I feel there would be some more to contribute based on that. I still feel that it is one of Thin Lizzy's most well known songs, behind The Boys are Back in Town, Jailbreak, and Whiskey in the Jar. George Starostin cites it as one of the best songs on the album, and the fact that there were several notable covers enhances the claim to notability. I feel that we should have more Thin Lizzy articles honestly. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not a lot in them that separates "Emerald" from any other track. At the time it was just an album track, albeit one strong enough to close the album and feature in the live set. I have a short quote from Lynott and some chat about the rhythms from Downey, where he talks about the feel he wanted. It might fill it out a bit, but at that rate I could write an article about every song they ever did. It would get like The Beatles... Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG with sources supplied by Eddy NemesisAT (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... I nominated this article for deletion, but the sources linked by Editorofthewiki are sufficient to keep. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 23 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 redirect to Lydia Nicole. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Ladies of Color[edit]

Funny Ladies of Color (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 local comedy show; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Several performers are notable, but this local, short-lived LA live show at one theater seems to be based on one LA Times profile, without longterm significance. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:06, 18 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petur Fannar Gunnarsson[edit]

Petur Fannar Gunnarsson (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)

Good faith creation, but does not meet the notability requirements; I cannot locate any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. (t · c) buidhe 15:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 15-20 minutes searching for reliable sources, and I did not find anything that causes me to disagree with you. I did add one source to verify that Gunnarsson is indeed a three-time world champion in his category. That fact is verifiable. But in the absence of other qualify sources to develop this article, I don't believe the subject meets notability and I agree this article should be deleted from Wikipedia. Pistongrinder (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He had a feature in the paper edition of Morgunblaðið in 2019 along with his partner, which included a coverage of his career along with an interview of them both, a part of it can be accessed online here. There are other sources found in the Icelandic media, all I found though is just routine or minor coverage of competitions he took part in such as these [18][19][20][21]. Unless other sources can be found, it is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 17:36, 18 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 redirect to Skrillex discography#Extended plays. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsyhook[edit]

Gypsyhook (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:NALBUM. Of the two cited sources on the article page, one appears to be from a user-contributed rating forum (now dead link without archive). Could not locate additional sources. -Liancetalk/contribs 15:43, 18 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 redirect to My Name Is Skrillex. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weekends (Skrillex song)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG, unable to locate coverage (the song has charted but as noted by criteria this does not indicate the song is notable). -Liancetalk/contribs 15:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Name Is Skrillex. If redirect gets deleted for failing WP:NALBUM, delete this page as well for failing WP:NSONG Hansen SebastianTalk 11:15, 20 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is Skrillex[edit]

My Name Is Skrillex (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:NALBUM. Was able to locate a review by Billboard but that's about it. -Liancetalk/contribs 15:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -Liancetalk/contribs 15:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Billboard is a pretty high level, mainstream source - they don't usually cover little niche stuff. It kind of seems unlikely to me that they would be the only ones to ever do a deep-dive retrospective like that. Just a thought - I haven't done any digging yet, I was just surprised to see this nom. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was able to locate some more coverage by Your EDM but unfortunately it seems to be rather shallow and brief. Also unsure if this source would qualify as a reliable publication. -Liancetalk/contribs 15:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, similarly, I found another feature at EDM.com, but I'm not familiar with that website either. (I don't follow the genre much.) If it is a reliable source, it does make the claim of it being one of the most important EDM releases of all time, which would be significant. Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AtomicMario (Talk to me | My contributions) 21:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The YourEDM.com and EDM.com articles here and mentioned above ([23][24],this EDM.com article) appear reputable per WP:A/S because they were written by editorial staff. Taken together with the Billboard article, this meets WP:NALBUM Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Heartmusic. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:30, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westmoreland Circle[edit]

Westmoreland Circle (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 Sea Cow (talk) 15:12, 18 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Circle[edit]

Scott Circle (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 Sea Cow (talk) 15:10, 18 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 13:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IC Markets[edit]

AfDs for this article:
IC Markets (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)

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are entirely based on standard company announcements and company-provided information, no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Also, last AfD was unduly overwhelmed by what we now know to be sockpuppet accounts. HighKing++ 14:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would be interested to know what specific part of the deletion policy is being considered here? It seems that this company is large enough to have some sort of presence on Wiki or is it that companies have to have a certain criteria to be mentioned on Wiki? I don’t know… I came to this page as I am one of their clients (Uk based) and I was interested in finding out some more details about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.72 (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has many guidelines that the community has effectively agreed to (over much ongoing consensus) for what justifies a page's entry on Wikipedia. The following are relevant (but not exhaustive)and would be a good place for you to start: WP:GNG; WP:NCORP; WP:RS. Cabrils (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete OK this is interesting. I can see why it's been nominated for AfD. Certainly there are many dubious sources that I think do not pass RS (notably the Finance Magnate articles). However, this SMH article and this Australian article are arguably sufficient to pass GNG. I note however that this SMH article is a classic passing mention that absolutely fails RS/substantive commentary. Having done some searching, I failed to find any new RS articles. I think on balance there just isn't enough (yet) to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP-- this feels WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 23:04, 23 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 11:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinehurst Circle[edit]

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

A traffic circle on the edge of Washington D.C., tagged for potential notability issues for 12 years. A search in the Washington Post archives only shows passing mentions, and most book results are for citywide construction lists in commissioner reports. Afraid this one isn't notable in the slightest. SounderBruce 08:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 08:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Maryland. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and Anna J. Cooper Circle, Westmoreland Circle, and maybe Scott Circle don't seem notable either. Reywas92Talk 14:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. I couldn't find any sources for this, either.

    That said, things like this and this and ISBN 9781445690483 page 108 hint that there's probably a redirect to be had out of this to List of places in Swindon (which could, ironically, do with using that book as a source) and hence an equal weight disambiguation article between that list and List of circles in Washington, D.C..

    Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd either delete or Redirect to List of circles in Washington, D.C.. I've done a check and can't find any case for notability, though I enjoy the fact that it's only a semicircle and that the article says "the circle forms a semicircle".--Milowent • hasspoken 15:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two redirect targets have been proposed. Should this point to one of the two, or just deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suppose I'd delete over redirect (re my comment above) if there's two places it could go. The title isn't too distinct.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We had a bunch of these articles about streets in Toronto a while ago up for review, this one seems about as non-notable. It has two bus stops? What else makes it notable? Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 18 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. Consensus is we don't have SIG COV required. Star Mississippi 02:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás Matos[edit]

Tomás Matos (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:BLP of an actor and dancer, not reliably sourced as passing WP:CREATIVE. As always, performers are not automatically notable just because they've had roles -- the notability test requires the performer to pass WP:GNG through sources that pay analytical attention to the significance of said roles, not just basic verification that roles have been had.
But the performances listed here are all supporting or ensemble parts, not leading roles, and of the five footnotes, three just briefly namecheck Tomás Matos's existence in articles that aren't about Tomás Matos in any non-trivial way, while another is a Q&A interview in which Tomás Matos is talking about themself in the first person in a limited-circulation online magazine, meaning none of those help to establish passage of WP:GNG at all -- and the only source that actually devotes any significant attention to Tomás Matos features one blurb's worth of information in a collective profile of a group of young actors, which is certainly a start down the right path but doesn't clinch notability all by itself if it's the only source that actually counts for something.
Also, this was created yesterday and then immediately incubated in draftspace by an established editor who correctly evaluated the sourcing as not good enough, only to then have the article creator arbitrarily move it back to mainspace again this morning without actually improving the sourcing one bit.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Tomás Matos from having to be the subject of quite a bit more than just one short blurb in a legitimate source. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "only to then have the article creator arbitrarily move it back to mainspace again this morning without actually improving the sourcing one bit." For starters, that is an outright, baldfaced, and unnecessary lie (why would you do this??). The article was given two new sources before being returned to the main article space. And the sources for the article include in-depth discussion of the subject in the New York Times (twice) and in NBC News (once) among a number of others. It did not qualify as draftible per WP:DRAFTIFY in the first place (please review that policy and point out specifically where I am wrong on this point), and never should have been moved there. I encourage any editor to have a look for sources and verify this for themselves. The subject has not met WP:CREATIVE, I agree, but that guideline is meant to provide guidance on articles that might deserve including in Wikipedia if they do fail to meet WP:GNG, not on which articles to exclude if they don't. If a person has been the subject of non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable independent published sources, as here, then the WP:GNG has been met and we don't even have to look at WP:CREATIVE. You would have to argue that the subject did not meet WP:GNG and didn't even meet WP:CREATIVE, not the other way around. The complaint that three of the sources given aren't "about Matos in a non-trivial way"-- what?? In one of the TWO New York Times articles mentioned he is the subject of an an entire section of text, one of four people discussed there and every one of them likely deserving a Wikipedia article based on that news piece alone. My fear now, though, is that no one will step up and oppose the nominator because of his illustrious career as a Wikipedia editor. It is obvious to me that a mistake has been made. I wonder if no one else will agree with me on this. A loose necktie (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks the level of roles that would lead to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subject also doesn't meet the criteria outlined at WP:MUSIC, WP:FILMS, WP:NGEO, or WP:NFOOTY. Can someone remind me why no one cares? What did I just say? A loose necktie (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The New York Times is paywalled so I can't evaluate it, the rest appear to be tangential/mentioned in passing. Mr. Necktie above should refrain from personal attacks unrelated to the discussion at hand. I wasn't aware that the NP:footy applied here, he seems even less notable if he has played soccer, I find nothing to support that statement either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I was joking about those. Am not sure what was seen as a personal attack(?) unrelated to the discussion at hand. A loose necktie (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. The sources barely namecheck the subject. Here's a quick summary:
  • NYT article about dancing on broadway: Paywalled, but just one of four subjects covered
  • Attitude: His name appears in two captions on two photos. There is no sigcov whatsoever.
  • NYT article about Diana: Paywalled
  • UPI: Mentioned once; no sigcov
  • NBC: States the subject is an "ensemble member" of the Diana cast and does not give a named part
  • MixedMag: Interview.
Unfortunately, I just think it's too soon for this performer. None of the preceding sources are in depth/sigcov from what I can tell. If there is continued coverage going forward and the subject's career continues to build, coverage will follow. --Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 21 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 12:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BYOB (musician)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NSINGER or WP:BASIC. Sources given in his article do not demonstrate notability, and when I did a search for some WP:SIGCOV about his career, I couldn't find anything. – DarkGlow • 11:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources found, some about a System of a Down song with the same name and the legal tussle about it, nothing for this fellow. He is "currently" working with Fatboy Slim, who hasn't really done much since the Olympics in 2012, so the article is horribly out of date. Slim released some music recently, but it hasn't been as big as his other stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article was entirely created by two editors, "Goodlizardmedia" and "Davidmatthewriley". Good Lizard Media was a short-lived promotions company in London, and David Riley was its marketing manager [25]. So I think we can safely say that this article was created as promotion for one of its clients. As far as I can tell, BYOB has released precisely one song since his 2010 album, which failed to make any impact whatsoever. So what you see in the current article is really everything there is to know about this artist, and there is nothing in the 11+ years since to add to this... just a couple of singles and an album, all of which failed to chart or gain any media attention. His website is dead too, which usually means the artist has given up making music as a full-time career. Richard3120 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Will never likely get updated either then, so less reason to keep it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point... if the current state of the article was the best sourcing available at the time, there certainly won't be anything around since 2010 to improve it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:09, 19 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 and none looks likely to emerge. Star Mississippi 02:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nevill, 6th Marquess of Abergavenny[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christopher Nevill, 6th Marquess of Abergavenny (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)

Previously deleted page, fails WP:BIO (WP:BASIC + WP:ANYBIO). Non-notable noble figure from Wales England with no significant coverage. Inherited his title in 2000, so never got to sit in the House of Lords. He ran unsuccessfully for a seat five times [26]. He is also an officer in the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) since 2011 [27], which as impressive as it sounds is the 18th lowest rank of the order, and we have previously deleted similar or higher-ranked members of the Order (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence John Arbuthnot (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Oskar of Prussia (b. 1959)). The peerage and Who's who entries are either deprecated or unreliable per WP:RSP. Other coverage of this person is published by the subject [28] or consisting of passing mentions [29], [30]. Pilaz (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Since the publishers of Who's Who (A & C Black/Bloomsbury Publishing/Oxford University Press) consider him notable enough for inclusion in their publication which is considered "the world’s most prestigious record of the great and the good" Piecesofuk (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Piecesofuk: A 2022 RfC classified Who's Who UK as unreliable, and therefore cannot count towards meeting the GNG/BASIC. On top of that, peers are included automatically, so inclusion is not an indication of notability. I wrote this in the nomination - did you gloss over it, or do you think it could have been written more clearly? Pilaz (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Who's Who (UK) and it doesn't state that Who's Who can't be used to establish notability, compare with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail Piecesofuk (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Piecesofuk Please see WP:GUNREL which states (in part): "Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person." While I agree with your "Keep" !vote, Who's Who has been determined to be unreliable by the community. --Kbabej (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By "the community" you presumably mean a handful of editors completely uninvolved in editing in the field, none of whom thought it a good idea to make the existence of the RfC more widely known among those who did actually know what they were talking about! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't take familiarity with "the field" to recognize a source that collects tens of thousands of self-submitted promotional "biographies" with apparently zero editorial fact-checking is no better than any other user-generated source. JoelleJay (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But have you read WP:BASIC? People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If it's not reliable, it can't count towards notability. Pilaz (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you on what you mean by reliable. Who's Who has a long history of being used as a reliable reference work for who is notable in the UK and around the world. The contents are autobiographical so may or may not be reliable. Their inclusion in my opinion is enough to pass notability. It's also a recommended reference work in the Wikipedia Library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/76/ Piecesofuk (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't disagree with me, you disagree with the community's unanimous consensus. Pilaz (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you are correct. If I'd known about the RfC I would have voted: reliable (with indication of notability) per WP:ANYBIO #3 (The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).) but to treat the entry per WP:ABOUTSELF If Wikipedia can't distinguish between the two then I think WP:IAR applies on this occasion. Piecesofuk (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with Who's Who UK is not only that it's not reliable, but that it's also a WP:TERTIARY source that contains WP:PRIMARY material (since, as the website indicates, all information submitted is autobiographical, and hence not independent from the subject). The GNG demands secondary sources to ascertain notability. You should feel free to challenge the consensus established at RSN, but this is not the place to do so. Pilaz (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2022 RfC (which no one who edits UK-related biographies seems to have been made aware of) flies in the face many previous individual discussions where Who's Who was endorsed as an assessment point for notability (and it's a part of the Wikipedia Library, which Pilaz did not mention in the RfC. Atchom (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's Who is on its face an obviously inappropriate source for notability purposes, no one should have been using it even before the RfC and it's astounding that anyone would've been endorsing it (can you link to these discussions please?). As Pilaz said, the biggest problem is that it is not independent (because of self-submission), which is required of all sources used to determine notability. It's also ridiculous to equate inclusion in it with inclusion in a "national encyclopedia"; with 33,000 entries it's practically a phonebook and not remotely indicative of importance. JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to this, since when does inclusion in the Wikipedia Library equal endorsement by Wikipedia's editing community? All this tells us is that the publisher (OUP) gave access to Wikipedia users, and that's it. Pilaz (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of Wikipedia Library is to give people sources to use to improve the encyclopaedia, is it not? Atchom (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And the reliability of said sources is determined by consensus at WP:RSN, is it not? Pilaz (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "an assessment point" not that it's determinative. Also, UK Who's Who is *not* like the American equivalent. It is extensively used as a source in, for instance, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which as authoritative as it gets (they also link all of their biographies to their Who's Who entry). As I said, not a single one of the editors who answered the RfD Pilaz launched seems to have a background in UK-related articles, and the discussion shows. Atchom (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the correct venue to challenge the outcome of an RfC. --JBL (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter where else it's used or who was aware of the discussion or whatever the US equivalent is, it's obviously unusable for considerations of notability due to not being independent. JoelleJay (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People do not apply (or pay) to be in it. They do not self select. They are selected by the editorial team because they are notable. While its fact checking may not be perfect (although, as has been stated, it's very odd indeed that the RfC was not made known to any appropriate forum and therefore only contributed to by editors who do not generally edit in the field), its selection criteria are not in doubt. Therefore it is a perfectly sensible statement that people in it are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the correct venue to challenge the outcome of an RfC. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-submitted content, whether actively sought by the publication or not, is obviously unusable for determining notability. If you have a problem with that, take it up with WP:RS or WP:OR or WP:N. If there's a group of editors who apparently are not aware of or do not follow these basic tenets of Wikipedia then perhaps the wider community should intervene. JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You really seem to fail to understand. People are selected to be in WW on the basis of their notability; they do not select themselves. The fact the content is self-submitted is irrelevant to their selection for inclusion. That's done by the editorial team. Non-notable people are not selected for inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of peers in WW is automatic and is made irrespective of the individual notability of peers. See Friedman and Reeves 2020. Pilaz (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which wasn't the point I was making at all. My point was that it is wrong to conflate the content of the entry with the decision to select an individual for an entry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources unearthed by Kbabej demonstrate coverage and notability, and could be used to flesh out the article. Ficaia (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The forensic analysis by Pilaz is very convincing. Much of the arguments in favour of keep above are entirely based on falsehoods such as "automatic notability of marquesses" or his appointment to a county-level ceremonial post. That's not how our notability guidelines work. That's not how WP:NPOL works. This individual has never been subject to in-depth, substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. A passing mention in a local newspaper is way, way below what meets our requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Marquess of Abergavenny, his peerage title, in lieu of deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting as a “delete” !voter that this would be acceptable to me (the target looks appropriate). —JBL (talk) 12:16, 19 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. Consensus is that despite the article's shortcomings, the subject meets notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Torossian[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ronn Torossian (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 about the founder of a small public relations firm in New York who achieved a small level of renown for his aggressive and often unethical methods of promoting himself and his clients. Those methods included sending dozens of sockpuppets in the direction of Wikipedia, to create this article and protect it from any efforts from regular editors to delete the article, or to include anything the slightest bit derogatory in it. Because of the active intervention of these sockpuppets, it was impossible at the time to get consensus to delete the article.

Over the past several years, Torossian's modest notoriety has faded into non-entityland. He recently stepped down from the head of his PR agency after a slew of attempts at character smears and other subterfuges.

Wikipedia does have some articles on the heads of the largest PR firms, such as Richard Edelman. Most of the other large firms (APCO Worldwide, Real Chemistry) have articles, but their CEOs or founders to not. Torossian's former firm, 5WPR, is nowhere near that league.

This man is completely not notable. Never was. Ravpapa (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Former short-term employee of about 7-8 years ago. There is nothing notable here aside form the recent scandal of him being unmasked as the buyer of a PR "news" website where he promoted his own firm and clients. Most of the article and previous versions of the article had sockpuppet accounts creating most of the content which were clearly employees. Torossian is also known for having employees write glowing reviews on Glassdoor. If not deleted, then the article should be completely rewritten using only sources where Torossian has not had his hands in things, which is hard to decipher at this point. His notability is tied to being too involved and too close to things in ways that skirt legality, his firm is not notable. Eliseparramore (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —  or, redirect to a page 5WPR (I am happy to draft a version of that in the next few days; at first glance, there does seem to be notable coverage of the firm per se, even if often tied to Torossian's personality; see e.g. here and here). I am highly skeptical of deleting the article, because its manifest problems notwithstanding, there is indeed quite a bit of coverage of Torossian, even just in the "reception" section. Combined with the coverage over the latest scandal, I think this easily meets WP:GNG requirements. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhinyTheYounger:: The first source you cite is from a trade press, which covers a lot of small PR firms that naturally fall below Wikipedia's notability bar; and the second source is from 2012. I know I have cited sources from 1912, but this is not exactly the same. The point is, Torossian might have achieved some measure of notoriety 20 years ago, but notoriety (or perhaps notoriousness) is not the same as notability.
I admit I am somewhat biased in this matter. In those days (2012), when Wikipedia was invaded by Torossian's army of sockpuppets, I was one of the few editors involved in tracking them down and trying to keep disinformation out of the article. In those days, I also received personal threats from his minions. So I suppose there is some modicum of revenge by having his name expunged from the annals of Wikipedia. Like the ancient Jewish curse - "May your name be erased!".
That said, I do sincerely think that the last shred of notability, if ever there was one, fell from Torossian the moment he left the firm that was his platform for aggrandizing his name. But I would not be averse to a solution such as you propose: to delete the article, to write a short article about 5WPR, and to include a few sentences about him as the founder of 5WPR. To go with this solution, however, we do have to decide that 5WPR is in itself worthy of a Wikipedia article. Ravpapa (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Seems notable if for nothing more than the attempts to "influence" wikipedia, part of the heritage of this site. That said, if we want to redirect the article to the 5WP article, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said earlier that I would be amenable to writing a short article about 5WPR, mentioning that Torossian was the founder, and deleting this article. But after a bit of research, I have changed my mind. There is nothing notable about 5WPR. It is ranked 56 worldwide among PR firms. Three or four of the top firms have Wikipedia articles - none of the others do. So I now think the whole thing should find its way deep into the internet archive.
A sign of the total lack of notability is that no one is even interested in discussing the article's deletion. A week gone by and only two comments. That in itself speaks for something, no? Ravpapa (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Participation rates in an AfD have no bearing on an article's notability. Also note that this AfD was not properly transcluded to the log originally, rendering it functionally invisible for the first 36 or so hours. This article has already gone through AfD twice, each time with consensus that Torossian did meet notability requirements, so the burden of proof is very high to show how the subject has somehow lost notability in the intervening years. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in spite of how over-done the article is. There are sources that are substantially about him, such as the Politico article and Business Week. There are also sources that fail verification, some that are trivial, and some that I suspect are simply false. If the article were honest, I think it would grate on us less. Lamona (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On an Afd round. Solid coverage in the 12-14 references that I checked. scope_creepTalk 20:25, 26 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 draftify at Draft:Lagos State Pension Commission. ––FormalDude talk 06:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Lagos State Pension Commission[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and also, it is created by a blocked account. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of the still in-presence !votes, it remains unclear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Rathfelder is correct that it will be referenced in legislation, but unclear on secondary sourcing. This is a new ish editor. Let them work on it in draft space. No harm, no foul if it is deleted in six months, but maybe it's improved in the interim. Star Mississippi 00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify There is a Britsh version at The Pensions Regulator so it assume it is notable or will be notable if it coming into existance. scope_creepTalk 15:12, 26 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. Star Mississippi 02:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan Republican Socialist Party[edit]

Bahujan Republican Socialist 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)

Fails WP:NORG. Pure promotional article to promote a single political candidate Suresh Mane, who himself fails WP:NPOL as he has not won a single election. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: please speedy delete it if it looks like it was meant only to promote! No problem. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The page passes the general notability guidelines and WP:NORG will only be considered when GNG isn’t met — unless there is something I’m missing. If the problem is the fact that it is promotional, move it to draft, clean it up and move back to mainspace. Deleting isn’t cleanup. Thank you. READING BEANSTalk to the Beans 06:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Reading Beans, draftifying is not advisable and I'm telling you out of my personal experience. Best bet is to put the article through AfD, gather a general consensus around it and let the closing admin take a call. - Hatchens (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Contrary to assertions above, no evidence in the article or in searches that this passes the GNG or any applicable SNG. No ATD appears evident. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 25 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. While sourcing depth questions remain, there is no consensus that is going to form that will result in the material being completetly deleted. ATD discussion, including a merge/mover/rename do not require an additional week of this discussion being open. Star Mississippi 19:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Foschi[edit]

Jessica Foschi (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 biography concerns a living person who is only notable for one event, to whit, being internationally banned from competitive swimming after testing positive for steroids. I don't think we should be hosting it. —S Marshall T/C 00:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 00:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and WP:BLP1E. KidAd • SPEAK 01:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was later found not guilty for steroids and that it was a sabotage. I think that's notable. She was also INTERNATIONALLY BANNED. Cool guy (talk • contribs) 02:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your personal opinion of fame and importance is irrelevant. That idea was soundly rejected in 2004. The pertinent question is "Where does the rest of the biography come from?" The person was internationally banned and … then what? Or indeed … what came before that? You have no sources, nothing at all, from which to construct a biography of this person's life and works. One event happened in 1995/1996. That event, the lawsuit, is in books on sports law and drugs tests as a case study, but it's not a biography of a person. Not everything in the world needs to be in Wikipedia in the form of biographies.

      The simple truth here is that this is a private individual whose life and works are not documented, who hit the headlines once at age 15.

      Irony: If Wikipedia editors on sports subjects actually collectively knew what they were about, they could actually cite Foschi as the author of a source on the subject of sports law, but being an author is not the same as being documented for a biography.

      Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Coverage of Foschi covers two years of articles in the New York Times. She is a case study in a book on drugs in sports. I have started adding in details from the New York Times, Newsday, and the books. The coverage is significant coverage (including entire articles about her, e.g., the 2007 Newsday article), and in reliable sources (New York Times, Los Angeles Times[31]. DaffodilOcean (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm intrigued. You've just gone to Jessica Foschi's biographical article, and you've added that she got into a high school athletics hall of fame. And you added that in its own separate section, headed "Awards and honors", and cited a local newspaper as a source. So now I need to know: did you do that unironically? Or was that perhaps some kind of performance art? A postmodernist deconstruction of the extremes that inclusionist sports-focused editors have normalized, perhaps?—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, it helps paint the picture of what she's done in the world of sport. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One of the strongest cases I've seen, she's been the subject of at lest three articles in peer-reviewed journals, [32], sports ethics and sports philosophy mostly. Also discussed in other languages, French for example finds at least two books about her [33]. The extra info added helps color the discussion, but doesn't distract from the fact about what she did and how it has led to critical discussions over the issue, some many years after the fact. Strongest Keep I've seen here in a while. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the court case has been the subject, but not the life and works of the person. You haven't read these supposed "books about her", quite obviously. ISBN 9782840505143, which is actually one thing in two search results, isn't about this person at all. It's about linguistics, and it uses a press cutting mentioning this person's name as an example sentence. Corinne Rossari, the author, is a linguistics professor. You are making AFD argument by zero-effort random phrase matching and not actually reading. Uncle G (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm sorry, but she's been cited twice in the French works as an example, regardless of subject, she's gained international traction as an example to be used in an educational field, that's more than notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's complete nonsense. Using a press cutting (labelled "presse écrite") is not citing this person in any way, shape, or form. This supposed "citing twice" is quoting a sentence from a newspaper twice, once in the original and once with modified wording, to discuss a point of linguistics. You clearly are grasping at straws here; straws which do not support an argument for keeping in any way. This is borne out of your not actually reading, but hoping that a phrase match on a search engine, when you couldn't even be bothered to indicate what result to look at, won't be called out for the zero effort that it is. Even if one doesn't understand what "version originale" means it's abundantly clear from the italicization of the changed words alone what is being discussed in the source. Now you are doubling down on your zero effort. Please put actual effort into AFD, because your effort here is none at all. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, her event has led to discussions in law journals, sports ethics and philosophy journals. She's almost become the "poster child" for what doping does. She's the case discussed over and over again by academics for what happened. Heavily notable, very needed in wikipedia. Critical discussion helps us all understand better. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's absolutely true and it's good grounds to cover the event in an article about doping. We have exactly zero sources that give biographical information about Ms Foschi. Therefore the encyclopaedic topic here is doping, and that's what we should be using those sources to write about. Ms Foschi as a person is not the encyclopaedic topic. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 15:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first two paragraphs of the article now include biographical details about Foschi, and the end of the section on her swimming career includes her wins while captain of the Stanford swimming team. In addition, her legal writing while at Duke has been noted as important. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment a well fleshed-out biographical article includes both a personal and work history section, which is what his article is. Reading the sources is not necessary as the member suggests, the fact that she's covered in at least three peer-reviewed journals makes her notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Reading the sources is not necessary"?—S Marshall T/C 15:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:BASIC and WP:BLP1E#3, this event appears to be significant, due to the commentary and analysis that has followed, and her role appears to have been substantial and well-documented based on what has been added to the article since the nomination and what I can see at the Wikipedia Library, including ProQuest. The coverage in reliable sources has been persistent, both about her and the various proceedings related to the doping allegations. There also does not appear to be a viable merge target at this time, and the amount of information that theoretically could be added to another article would be too long or "clunky" and likely best addressed by simply linking to her article with a brief summary - I say this in part because what has been added so far to the article does not appear to completely summarize the proceedings related to the doping allegations. Beccaynr (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beccaynr - you are absolutely right that the timeline of what happened in the doping allegations is not quite right. There are also multiple organizations involved, and I hope to sort some of them out next. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 10.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep we have WP:SUSTAINED coverage and her swimming career continued to receive coverage after the failed drugs test. Thus, I don't believe this falls foul of WP:BLP1E. Sourcing has been improved significantly since the nomination and only delete vote. NemesisAT (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a low-profile individual who is notable for one (1) single event. All the sources are either about that event, or they're providing background and context to that one event. WP:SUSTAINED says: If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. What the keep side needs to produce is a source that isn't about the doping allegations.—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP1E does not require "a source that isn't about the doping allegations", even though there are several in the article. WP:BLP1E states, We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met (emphasis added). Based on sources in the article, including those noted in the DRV discussion, WP:BLP1E#3 does not appear to be met, due to the significance of the events related to the doping allegations in the midst of Foschi's swimming career, as well as her substantial and well-documented role. As noted in the DRV discussion, WP:BLP1E policy also states, The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources, and the significance of the event and her role appears to be established by the scholarly and media sources that continue to provide analysis and commentary on her and the proceedings for years after the initial burst of coverage related to the allegations, including a 2015 law textbook.
    In addition, multiple independent and reliable sources cover Foshi for her swimming and academic career before, during, and after events related to the allegations, all of the coverage related to her swimming career is not related to the allegations, and even sources that refer to the doping allegations still provide biographical content about her and her swimming career that allows a BLP to be developed, per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Per WP:HEY, it seems to have become more clear that Foschi is notable as a swimmer who was also substantially involved in a series of proceedings related to doping allegations that are considered significant to sports as well as sports law. What may subjectively seem like 'background and context' is her biography and career, i.e. a BLP objectively supported by multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that she meets BASIC and GNG and, in your opinion, HEY doesn't overcome the reason for deletion here. Irrespective of the guidelines that she passes, BLP1E is a policy that she fails. I do not know how you can possibly read those sources and think they aren't about the doping allegations.—S Marshall T/C 20:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the sources in the article, I am not sure why there is an ongoing attempt to assert the sources are all about the doping allegations. Beccaynr (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - This is the first time I have been involved in a conversation re-listed for discussion about deletion. Why does it not appear on the list of discussions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women ? DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment - The coverage of Foschi begins as a 12-year old swimmer, extends through the doping allegations, into college, past college, and into her legal work on sports law. As Beccaynr clearly indicates, this meets the criteria for WP:SUSTAINED, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaffodilOcean: - I have changed your !vote above to comment as you have already voted keep in this discussion. You can't !vote twice in the same discussion. A relist is an extension of the same discussion, not a new one. Your further comments remain valid though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I did not understand that this was a continuation. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, New York, and list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I concur with the very legitimate expressions of keep above. It's fair to say this person's notability may well be underlined by this event, and indeed even sources and coverage in the years following it still reference the event. WP:BLP1E point 3 makes specific mention if the single event itself is significant, which it was and the coverage it received at the time is equally significant. Similarly WP:1E suggests a separate article is appropriate where significant media coverage can be demonstrated. None of that even considers the wider implications noted by Oaktree b which are also relevant. I think on balance, the article's existence can be justified. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BASIC per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Been nominated 3 times. 1st was keep, 2nd (dlrv) was relist (no consensus), and then this. Kinda ridiculous don't ya think? Cool guy (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SUSTAINED and per WP:BASIC. Consesus on this seems clear.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, OK. Let's examine these new contentions.
  1. Of the four, the first by Bungle is the best, although I still think it's wrong. He says there are sources and coverage that significantly postdate the event. That doesn't mean they're not about the one event for which this low-profile individual is notable, and indeed when you examine them, they are. Since others are also making this claim, I refer you all to the points that UncleG made right at the start of this AfD. Nobody has challenged what UncleG said -- they've simply ignored it. Bungle then goes on to say that there can be a separate article where there's significant media coverage, which is correct but the bar for it is pretty high. That rule is why we have articles about Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark David Chapman. It doesn't mean we should have an article about an otherwise low-profile attorney who was wrongly banned from international swimming because of a test error. Finally, Bungle refers to the arguments by Oaktree b, and I would note that Oaktree b's position was comprehensively destroyed by UncleG some days ago. I would also point out that Oaktree b argued for the article to be retained because, and I quote, "It's great that she's turned her life around, but her past is her past, I don't see the issue with presenting it in a scholarly context, no matter how shameful it might be; to be blunt, don't do the crime if you can't do the time." In other words, Oaktree b somehow managed to read the sources and think she was guilty. The fact that people skim-read and misunderstand is exactly why we have the BLP1E rule in the first place. It's there to protect low-profile living people from unfair associations like this one.
  2. The other three are dire. SBKSPP says: "Meets WP:SUSTAINED AND WP:BASIC." WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BASIC are both arguments about notability -- they're literally pointers to subsections of WP:N. At issue here is not notability, which is a guideline, but BLP1E, which is a policy. Not all AfDs are about notability.
  3. Cranloa12n says: "Been nominated 3 times. 1st was keep, 2nd (dlrv) was relist (no consensus), and then this. Kinda ridiculous don't ya think?" It has in fact been nominated for deletion once, by me, and relisted by Sandstein following a deletion review. This is not even out of the ordinary, let alone ridiculous.
  4. Vinegarymass911 says exactly the same thing as SBKSPP, and his comments have exactly the same problem.
My position is that the reasons for deletion have yet to be addressed by anyone !voting "Keep".—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about the coverage I noted that began with her at age 12? This coverage pre-dates the doping allegation by 2-3 years: [34] and [35] and [36]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, to address the comment that we have not addressed @Uncle G:'s point, that argument was that Foschi made the news at age 15, which is now refuted based on the new sources added since the page was originally nominated for deletion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's look at those sources in detail. This one is about The Women's Sport Foundation, but it does contain three sentences about Jessica Foschi, from which we glean the following information about her: (1) On the publication date, she was 13 years old; (2) She was at that time from Brookville, N.I.; (3) She has met Olympic Gold Medalist Nancy Hogshead; and (4) Nancy Hogshead was at that time one of Jessica Foschi's swimming idols. This one is about a seven-lane swimming pool in North Hills but it does contain one sentence about Jessica Foschi, from which we glean the following information about her: (1) On the publication date, she was 12 years old; (2) She was at that time from Brookville, N.I.; and (3) She broke her age-group records in the 100-, 200- and 400-metre freestyle events at the Senior Metropolitan Championships at West Point. This one confirms point (3) of the previous source and gives the specific times. And sure, I totally agree that in her teens Ms Foschi was clearly an exceptional swimmer who was favourably mentioned several times in local newspapers. I cannot agree that this justifies writing a Wikipedia article about her.—S Marshall T/C 15:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: I think much of the retention rationale and consensus is supported by WP:1E and WP:SUSTAINED. I observe Uncle G is the only one who has taken a meaningful congruent stance to your own (albeit without a formal !vote). I anticipated your keep rationales analysis (from our previous crossing of paths), however looking at relevant policies, I do think there is a case to keep. WP:1E even notes, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. (yes, I know generally appropriate is somewhat subjective). There are mentions of her in press cuttings before the event, albeit not exactly significant, but then she was only 15 when the event happened. Lastly, I pointed out that I thought Oaktree b made relevant points, but that is not an endorsement of their position unquestionably in its entirety; rather that I considered the points about how the case influenced future works had relevance, but I did not rest or support my rationale on this basis. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you say that UncleG didn't make a formal !vote, are you under the impression that he needs to write a word in bold before the closer can take his view into account? I do agree with you that FOSCHI BY FOSCHI v. United States Swimming, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) is a notable court case. I also agree that her role in the case was a significant one although the plaintiff was her father (she was a child without standing to bring a court case on her own.) I can't agree with you that the court case was "highly significant", and I think this is where the case for inclusion falls flat. I have already pointed out that WP:SUSTAINED is a notability-based argument that is beside the point here.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FOSCHI BY FOSCHI v. United States Swimming, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) is not a notable court case, it's an order for remand to the state court that relies on an amended complaint for its facts. It is a sidelight of the significant proceedings that happened in other dispute resolution forums in which Foschi has a substantial and well-docimented role. I added it as an External link because I'm not yet sure what to do with it while the article develops. Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response:
are you under the impression that he needs to write a word in bold before the closer can take his view into account? - No, but doing so is generally considered etiquette in committing to one's preferred stance. All comments are valid and I even note this in relation to DaffodilOcean's erroneous second !vote.
I do agree with you that FOSCHI BY FOSCHI v. United States Swimming, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) is a notable court case. Ok, but I didn't state this.
I can't agree with you that the court case was "highly significant" - Likewise, I didn't state this.
I have already pointed out that WP:SUSTAINED is a notability-based argument - This discussion is, among other things, a discussion about determining notability.
I don't really think I have anything further to add to this debate now and I don't wish for an evolution into an exchange of personal opinion, or justification of a stance. I have expressed a view, as have others. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
at this point this entire thing could be a novel Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 15:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a BLP1E, any more than Anita Hill is. Like that "event", this "event" became a cause célèbre and has been discussed as such. It's not just any old doping case, just as Anita Hill is not any old sexual harassment case. I do think that the doping case should be in its own section and should bring out more of the aftermath, such as the discussion in legal sources. The other option that I see is making the case the focus of an article with a redirect from her name to the article for the case. The case is definitely significant. Lamona (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anita Hill's an educator, author and public speaker who actively campaigns on sexual harassment. She continues to write for newspapers. She's a high-profile individual who continues to seek publicity for a just cause and it's right that Wikipedia has an article about her. Jessica Foschi, on the other hand, is an attorney for PWC who got wrongly accused of doping when she was 15. She's a low-profile individual within the meaning of WP:BLP1E and WP:WIALPI. The doping case is notable but Foschi's name should not redirect to it for the reasons already given.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is basically a snow keep now. Multiple people are claiming keep. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 20:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Someone should close this now. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the weight of numbers defeats my policy-based stand on this?—S Marshall T/C 13:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weight of which numbers? There are THIRTY citations in the article. As others have explained, the bulk of the coverage concerns the aftermath of her ban and the legal case study in particular is what makes her a notable subject for an article. As for number of "keeps", WP:CONSENSUS applies. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go over all of the THIRTY citations you mention.
1: This one is about the aftermath of the doping allegations.
2: This one isn't found.
Update:I have updated this citation to the clipping from newspapers.com [37]. In the article you will note while they mention her 'disappointment' at not qualifying for the olympics in the previous year, the word 'doping' appears no where in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3: This one points to Time Magazine in 1996. It mentions page 19. I think from the URL it wants to direct you to the 11th November edition, but when I checked page 19 of the 11th November edition, it was a full-page advertisement for the Microsoft Internet Explorer Starter Kit. It contains no information about Jessica Foschi.
Update: DaffodilOcean has now improved the citation so we can see that it points at the March 1996 edition, in which Time Magazine does give reasonably detailed coverage which is entirely about the doping allegations.
4: This one is WP:MILL coverage from a local newspaper about the 20th anniversary of the founding of the local Women's Foundation. It contains three sentences from Jessica Foschi, who was 13 at the time, speaking about how much she admired one of her sporting idols.
5: This one is WP:MILL coverage from a local newspaper about a new building at Morley Park. It contains five sentences from Jessica Foschi, who was 14 at the time, speaking about how much she likes swimming.
6: This one is a proper, in-depth, good quality source. It's about the one event for which she is properly notable.
7: This one is WP:MILL coverage from a local newspaper about how much Morley Park needs the new building mentioned in source 5. It contains one sentence about Jessica Foschi, who was 12 at the time, and mentions how she broke her local age-group records in the senior metropolitan championship.
8: This one is the same as source 7 but it gives specific times.
9: This one is WP:MILL coverage from a local newspaper about the local athletics Hall of Fame. It contains three sentences about Jessica Foschi, and I notice that in this the most recent source she's changed her name, although that small detail doesn't seem to have made its way into the article yet. It confirms that in her teens, she was a high school athletics champion and a NCAA champion.
10: This one contains a passing mention of her in which someone beat her in an 800 metres swimming race.
11: And so does this one.
12: This one is WP:MILL coverage from a local newspaper about Stacey Kolota, who won a race, and Jessica Foschi, who didn't, but does hold a state record (which from the context means the state record in her age group -- the source dates to her early teens) in the 500 metres.
13: This one is good quality, serious coverage of the one event for which she is properly notable.
14: This one is actually a poorly-cited pointer to this source, which is by Jessica Foschi and not about her. After the doping allegations she qualified as an attorney and she currently works for PWC. Before she qualified, she wrote this one academic paper that got published. She's clearly a bright lady as well as an excellent swimmer, but she doesn't meet our standards for an article about an academic.
15: This one is a legal textbook that discusses the one case for which she's notable.
16: This one is a history of doping in sport which discusses the one thing for which she's notable.
17: And so is this one.
18: This is the only source cited that isn't online. I don't have access to it, but it's only used to verify claims about use of steroids, so it must be about the one event for which she's notable.
19: This one is a book on drugs and sports which discusses the one thing for which she's notable.
20: This one is another proper, decent source about the one event for which she's notable.
21: This one is a good source that reports she wasn't guilty of the allegations in the one event for which she's notable.
22: This one is a proper, academic source about dispute resolution in sport. It discusses the one event for which she's notable.
23: This one is from the Orlando Sentinel, and it's blocked from being displayed here in the UK. (This is commonplace with American sources that don't want to comply with British legal standards about privacy and consent to harvest user data.) It's only used to verify the same facts described in sources 16 and 17, so my position is that it must be about the one thing for which she's notable.
24: This one reports that after the final decision in the one event for which she's notable, she returned to competitive swimming, aged 19. Apparently of the 78 contenders in the preliminaries, she finished in 31st position, so it's basically reporting that she failed to qualify.
25: This one reports that at the age of 15, she came fourth in the 800 metre trials. She was, and I quote the source exactly, "a nonfactor in the race won by Brooke Bennett". It then goes on to extensively discuss the one event for which she's notable.
26: This one, dating to when she was 17, reports that she was looking forward to getting back to competitive swimming after the one event for which she's notable.
27: This one is a book about Natalie Coughlin. It mentions Jessica Foschi on one page because Coughlin beat Foschi in a 200 metres. It also alleges some behaviour by Foschi which Coughlin thought was unfair. This isn't mentioned in any of the other sources.
28: This one is WP:MILL coverage in a specialist swimming magazine which mentions Jessica Foschi, in passing, at the end of one single sentence on page 26. Apparently she won a 500 yard freestyle race for her college.
29: This one, I would need to register an account to verify and I can't currently be bothered. It's only used in the article to verify that she came second in a 1650 metre race for her college.
30: This one is about her brother, who apparently plays American Football, but it mentions Jessica quite a lot, talking about the one event for which she's notable.
Do you see? THIRTY sources doesn't do it. She's notable, but she's only notable for one event.—S Marshall T/C 18:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obscuring the authors, works, and especially the dates of coverage in the list above seems to obscure how she did not remain low-profile after the proceedings related to the doping allegations, and seems to obscure the persistent coverage, commentary, and analysis demonstrating the significance of those events, as well as her substantial and well-documented role. She is the common denominator in the sources over time, and many focus on her as a person, not just as a subject of a sports controversy. The article can be reorganized, but something other than "case" may need to be used to describe her experience with the proceedings and events related to the doping allegations, because encapsulating what happened into such a neat term of art is not necessarily supported by the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per S Marshall's analysis of sources. WP:BLP1E applies. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument made for deletion is based on WP:BLP1E. There are three points to this, each of which has to be met for WP:BLP1E indicate we probably shouldn't have an article.
  1. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" is mildly debatable (the things listed as "MILL" above could take us out of that) but I'd agree. S Marshall has made a strong case for this.
  2. is about otherwise being a low-profile individual. I'm unsure as I've not looked closely, but I think that's likely true.
  3. is a bit more tricky. "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". I think that individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented isn't in debate--her role is central and the sources document it quite well. But If the event is not significant is certainly debatable. Just below that, WP:BLP1E says "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". As I read it, persistent is very similar to WP:SUSTAINED (I can't think what else that word might mean). Looking at the sources above, #13 is from 2007, #15 is from 2015, #16 is from 2008 (and fairly trivial), #17 is from 1998, etc. I think we have around a dozen decent sources (including solid academic books) covering the event over the span of 20+ years. I'd call that pretty persistent and makes for a strong claim that the event is significant. So I think point #3 isn't met.
To me the only question is if we should have an event article per the suggestion of point #2 of BLP1E (the event is pretty clearly notable given the coverage) or a BLP. Deletion is off the table IMO. And if we do go with an event article, this should be a redirect rather than be deleted (per WP:BLP1E). So I'm at keep or rename with a redirect left behind in the event of a rename. Given all !votes so far have pretty much been keep or delete arguments, the rename thing probably is best discussed on the talk page. For the record, I think a renaming to an event article is a better choice. Hobit (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think challenges that may exist in an attempt to rename the article as an event help demonstrate the significance of the events, and Foschi's substantial and well-documented role. The sources indicate there is not simply a significant series of legal proceedings in a variety of forums, but also an event within and outside of those forums that have independent signficance for sports generally. It is Foschi who brings both together with her substantial and well-documented participation in the significant events, and sources that later focus on her and her experience seem to support this. The article still needs work to help clarify what happened, and there is plenty of research that still appears possible. Beccaynr (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly can see that. And I agree there would be some issues. But I think that it would meet the spirit of WP:BLP1E to do so. I certainly don't expect everyone will agree with me and you raise real issues. Hobit (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question one of the arguments about WP:BLP1E seems to be centered around low profile individuals. While during the event itself she was low profile (e.g., coverage without her consent), the articles multiple years after the event are with her consent. Given this, would she still be considered low profile? I also updated citation #2 [38] to provide the newspapers.com clip as it shows coverage of her winning the NCAA title in 500 freestyle, with no mention of doping. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fine question. WP:LPI provides guidance. I'd say she hits "low-profile" in all of those things. She's not going out of her way to build a high profile IMO. But as I said, I've not looked closely. Hobit (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I have with the redirect idea is that it doesn't protect Ms Foschi. Her name still gets connected with the false allegations. We've already seen an editor skim the article and come away with the impression she was guilty. So if we leave the redirect we're preventing BLP1E from doing its job.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, when CoolGuy interpreted the article to read she had been banned it look like this [39], before the additions to the page which have made it clearer that she was exhonerated.
    Second, I don't think we can argue that Foschi needs protecting when she has consented to interviews in 1998,[40] 1999, [41] and 2007.[42] In 2001, she was also in a full-page picture in an article in the New York Times Magazine,[43] which is not on her page as it is just a picture of her with Misty Hyman though she must have consented to the picture. If I look at WP:LPI, these fall under media attention/high-profile while WP:BLP1E covers low-profile individuals. Then, combined with the coverage of her win in the 2001 NCAA 500 meter freestyle [44] and the other shorter coverage exhaustively covered above, Foschi is notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to Oaktree b rather than CoolGuy, in fact. On your second point I'd refer you to WP:WIALPI, which contains our clearest thought on the distinction between low- and high-profile individuals. It says, lightly paraphrased, that consenting to media interviews does not, by itself, make you a high-profile individual.—S Marshall T/C 17:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by almost the same reasoning as Hobit's keep opinion. I agree entirely with the argument up to and including the judgement that whether BLP1E applies comes down to how we interpret "persistent": where Hobit decides to interpret this in line with the assessment of sustained coverage in notability assessments, here, I think BLP applies a different and higher standard; BLP subjects should just be better sourced and more generally covered than the notability assessment suggests. Thus none of the exceptions apply. While the case might be interesting enough that we should use it to create the event article Hobit discusses, we should not keep BLP-violating material in articlespace while we do this, so I am opposed to any ATD outcome other than draftify. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see an argument that persistent is greater than sustained. But 10+ good sources, including academic textbooks, over 20+ years seems like it would go over most any bar. Add in another 20, more moderate sources, and it seems pretty strong. Could you indicate where you'd draw the line here? Hobit (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll start by making a general point about BLP1E: when low-profile living individuals are the subject of a WP article because of just one event, the risk is that the coverage starts to get nosy and intrusive. With non-1E BLPs, the risk is way lower because we can get reasonable articles from just sticking to the facts, so applying the BLP rules and DUE is easier; with high-profile individuals the wealth of sourcing helps as well. So this article is in an area where I am quick to reach for the delete button.
Even so, when I first looked at this AfD I was inclined to think that the nature of the subject, with her later drawing on her experiences in her law reviews, was an exception. But looking over S Marshall's source analysis convinced me that this article is in fact an advertisement for leaning deletionist with BLPs: most of what is there would not survive a rigorous application of the BLP guidelines.
The line for me is that the sourcing should be obviously strong enough that after rigorous BLP winnowing we will have enough to have a valuable encyclopedia article. As it stands, I think we have material that could be used elsewhere, but for the reason S Marshall gave, I'd be unhappy with a rename or merge outcome to this AfD. Hence, delete or draftify. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per S Marshall's source analysis (it's in a nested reply) and per Charles Stewart's rationale. She's only notable for one event, so WP:BLP1E applies here. The amount of people who argue that WP:SUSTAINED is met despite the fact that the coverage gravitates around one single event, which is something that SUSTAINED reminds the reader about, is worrisome. Pilaz (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, I think that Hobit's idea to create an article that is centered around the event, rather than the person, would be of encyclopedic value and not go against the BLP1E part of the BLP policy. Once that article is created and sufficiently sourced, I would have no issue with a redirect. Pilaz (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think based on the sources that analyze the events years later, it is challenging to determine what the event would be called, because it isn't just a "case", and there were related events involving her swimming career that were also later considered significant for sports. That is why I think it would be better to present this article as a BLP, because it is within her biography that all of these significant events happened, and there is persistent coverage of her substantial and well-documented role in all of it. That she wrote one law review note unrelated to her personal experience that was also the subject of commentary in a 2015 law textbook that analyzes some of the legal proceedings is a relatively minor part of her biography, but it relates to other secondary coverage about her that is about more than the events. Beccaynr (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And to expand this thought as we try to work together to figure how to best proceed with this article, I think sources, including some discussed at DRV, may be helpful to consider with regard to whether the three conditions of WP:BLP1E are met:
    • Charles Yesalis (1998). The steroids game. Internet Archive. Human Kinetics. pp. 100, 191–193. ISBN 978-0-88011-494-3., discusses Foschi's role in legal proceedings, surrounding events, and her swimming career during this time, as well as the significance within sports generally. It does refer to "The Jessica Foschi case", although it seems more like a 'case study' due to the inclusion of information about her swimming career.
    • Pampel, Fred (2007). Drugs and Sports. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4381-2444-5. at p. 36, frames her legal proceedings as an example related to the impact on sports, and appears to be another example of persistent coverage supporting the significance.
    • Rosen, Daniel M. (2008-06-30). Dope: A History of Performance Enhancement in Sports from the Nineteenth Century to Today. ABC-Clio. pp. 91–93. ISBN 978-0-313-34521-0., discusses "the story of Jessica Foschi's ordeal", the impact on the sport, and adds context. This source appears to frame the events as revolving around Foschi, and significant for the sport.
    • Nafziger, James A. R. (2002). "Dispute Resolution in the Arena of International Sports Competition". The American Journal of Comparative Law. 50: 161–179. doi:10.2307/840875. ISSN 0002-919X. - in a subsection titled "The Foschi Case" describes the case as "celebrated" (at 162) and then focuses on Foschi, her swimming career, her actions within the proceedings, as well as the procedural history, with analysis about the significance of the case (at 162-164). This is another source focusing on a significant aspect of the legal issues, as well as Foschi.
    • Weiler, Paul C. (2015). Sports and the law : text, cases, problems. Internet Archive. St. Paul, MN : West Academic Publishing. p. 1141. ISBN 978-1-62810-161-4., which discusses what it describes as an "incident" that "put an intriguing twist on the role of national tribunals in overseeing the rules and decisions of international sports federations." (at 1182) It then discusses the procedural history (1182-1183) before describing her law review note on the general issues, not her own experience, as "impressive". There is additional context for her case at 1199. This source focuses on an aspect of the legal issues as significant.
    • Hahn, Alan (28 March 1999). "Water Under the Bridge". Newsday (Suffolk Edition). p. 114. Retrieved 2022-03-03. is an in-depth profile of Foschi that includes biographical, career, and education information in addition to looking back at what the article describes as a "19-month ordeal". This seems to undermine the BLP1E condition that she otherwise remained low-profile, as does a later in-depth profile that includes more than the events: Baumbach, Jim (2007-06-10). "Beyond the FIGHT: Ten years after being exonerated from a positive test for steroids, Jessica Foschi has graduated from law school". Newsday (Nassau Edition). p. 70. Retrieved 2022-03-03. Both of these sources also seem to support the significance of the events, due to the persistent coverage of the events afterwards.
    • Baumbach, Jim (March 15, 2001). "NCAA SWIMMING / Foschi's A Winner At Home". Newsday. pp. A77. Retrieved 18 March 2022. She also continued to receive coverage related only to her ongoing swimming career, which seems to be another indication that she did not otherwise remain low-profile. Beccaynr (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely agree there's persistent coverage of the case. I distinguish that from persistent coverage of the person, which I'm not seeing at all, apart from the MILL coverage in local newspapers.
    What the "persistent coverage" provision in BLP1E means is that if the event's significant enough, one event is enough. If we didn't have that rule, those crazy people whose hobby is disrupting Wikipedia would be able to use socks to start disruptive deletion nominations about Neil Armstrong or Guy Fawkes, who are after all only known for one event. The difference is though that with Armstrong or Fawkes, the event was significant enough for authors or journalists to write proper biographies of the people involved. So we've got sources for biographical details: their places and dates of birth, or their educational accomplishments, or their nationalities and ethnic origins, or their religions, or their marriages and children; you know, the kinds of sources that would let us write a biography.
    I think this takes us right the way back to all the things UncleG pointed out early on in this debate. He told us why the doping matter is best phrased as an article about the case and I invite you all to re-read what he said.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But we do have biographical information, including from the in-depth profiles after the events, noted above in my comment, which help us write a proper biography - they are covering her as a person, including her place and year of birth, education, and swimming career accomplishments. I also think the nature of the events are biographical due to the duration, her substantial and well-documented role, and how her swimming career continued during the events. There does not appear to be a feasible way to objectify her into a "case", based on the sources, which include coverage of her as a person by multiple sources after the event. The three sports-related texts noted above take one approach to the significance of the events, while the two legal texts take another, and it is the news coverage that seems to help clarify how she also continued to be covered after the events. Beccaynr (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have a different idea of what kind of sourcing is adequate to write a proper biography to S Marshall and myself, and while I think your idea is at odds with how BLP1E policy handles low-profile individuals, it's hard to actually prove this since it depends on your unrealised picture of what the article should be. This is a problem with the AfD process: it demands fast outcomes. It's a crapshoot as to what happens to this content with the AfD as it stands if we don't reach a compromise; as a compromise, draftification allows a much longer time frame to actually see what can be done with the material. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be a difference in perspective on the events - if this was only a court case, it could matter if it was fact-driven or only a legal issue, because a case with extensive secondary facts might help support a biography, where a decision on a point of law might not be enough. For this article, the so-called case is a series of proceedings, including at least one court case, but more significantly (per the sources) the national and international forums and what happened outside of those proceedings before, during, and afterwards. There are extensive facts available to build out this part of her biography, and I have made additions to the article to signal this, and strong secondary sources have been produced in this discussion, so I don't think draftification is warranted, because cleanup appears to be possible.
    • With regard to WP:WIALPI, she did seek media attention after the events, in 1999 and 2007, and has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication [...] as a [...] "public face" or "big name", so we seem to not be in a situation where she simply vanished off the media map after the series of events.
    • A question was raised at the beginning of the discussion about what happened after the events, and there are three sources in my comment above, including two non-routine in-depth profiles and one report focused on her and her NCAA performance, that help answer that question. Both the 2015 textbook and the 2007 news source find her law review worthy of notice, even though her later educational accomplishments are not directly related to the significant events.
    • Also, despite discussion about a rename or merge, there is no proposed alternative title or merge target, and I think this may reflect how the nature of the events are too sprawling and biographical to refer to as a 'case', and similarly, are too sprawling and biographical to effectively merge into an existing article.
    I think it will take some time to improve the article, but it can be improved, and the sources are sufficient to support a biography, in part due to the nature of the so-called case, but primarily due to its significance and Foschi's substantial and well-documented role, and due to how she did not remain low-profile afterwards. She does not meet all of the conditions for BLP1E, and because she did not remain low-profile, we have in-depth sources with biographical information that help develop her biography past the significant events. Beccaynr (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that cleanup might be possible, but as S Marshall has pointed out, that's only a guideline and BLP is policy: a closer should disregard speculation and decide on the basis of what has been demonstrated. I disagree that Foschi's interviews afterwards rise to the level of not being a low-profile individual. The typical case that applies to is in the case of people whose career depends on them being in the limelight, which is far from the case here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And per BLP policy, she does not meet all of the conditions for BLP1E. She had a substantial and well-documented role in significant events, as documented by contemporaneous sources and sources analyzing the events years after the events. She also sought media attention afterwards, which were more than interviews, and provide biographical information about her after the events. And she later participated in high-profile sporting events, which add additional depth to her biography. The reason why clean up is possible is because her substantial and well-documented role requires incorporating more content from the contemporaneous and later sources to write a chronological narrative, and the sources are available. There is nothing in the WP:WIALPI explanatory supplement, which is neither a policy nor guideline, that appears to suggest her entire career must depend on being in the limelight. By keeping the focus on BLP policy and the sources, it appears we have plenty of sourced information to build a biography, and that a biography article may be the only BLP-compliant approach for this article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Foschi ATD workshop[edit]

  • Comment: This AfD is currently a stand-off between !voters impressed by the number of sources and those who think the material is a violation of BLP. It's possible there is middle ground, hence this section. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What does 'ATD' mean? DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, WP:ATD means alternative to deletion. Our deletion policy holds that we should not delete material even if the consensus is that we should not keep if there is a good ATD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have one further question then, why is 'no consensus' not a possible outcome to the WP:AFD discussion? The article could be retained while it is worked on further. Perhaps I am missing something, but doesn't having a discussion on 'alternatives to deletion' presume that the article will be deleted? DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible, perhaps even probable, but closers tend to be cautious in BLP1E cases. Take a look at, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Wankhede, which is similar in being "no consensus by the numbers, but BLP"; I think this was an exemplary close that was the subject of an inconclusive challenge at DRV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal #1: The current contents of the article should be draftified. A BLP-compliant stub should be created at Jessica Foschi doping case and 'Jessica Foschi' should be turned into a redirect to it. Once we figure out what to do with the current contents, the draft can be history-merged into articlespace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to keep the article as it is now, as Foschi had a swimming career outside of the doping case and the coverage of this wouldn't really fit in an article titled "Jessica Foschi doping case". NemesisAT (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather delete, because this would be a BLP of a low-profile individual. But this section is a workshop section to see if there are good ATDs if we don't keep. In the absence of a credible ATD, I'm not changing my delete !vote. Cf. my reply to Beccaynr.— Charles Stewart (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postscript: Note that this ATD does not say whether Foschi will ultimately be a redirect. Hypothetically, the advocates of a Foschi bio could show that the fears of those raising BLP concerns are ultimately ill-founded because a maintainable, encyclopdic bio that conforms to our pilicies on low-profile individuals can be done. Then, perhaps, it is 'Jessica Foschi doping case' that should be a redirect to the bio. The point is that this is decided on the basis of editing done in draftspace without the AfD-speed countdown, which is in my opinion not ideal for this kind of thing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although i'd be open to supporting a rename of the article (name TBD) to shift the emphasis onto the event itself rather than the individual, the sources and overall contents would largely remain unchanged so may not address concerns raised that the individual should not have (or does not need) this matter publicised. I have tried to take an objective view on this and can see some merit shifting the emphasis away from a BLP, but she was the subject of this unfortunate affair that received significant lasting reporting, as well as the case studies that followed. There seems to be consensus to have an article, but maybe the focal point is less clear. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just replied to your earlier comment without realizing this section had been opened, so I incorporate what I just wrote by reference. Also, "Jessica Foschi doping case" both seems like an inaccurate description (see comments above, discussing how this is not a 'case') and a BLP violation due to how it sounds like she was 'doping'. Beccaynr (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm persuaded by your case that the title is a BLP violation; also if BLP1E says we can't have an article on Foschi we shouldn't even have a redirect. So I don't think this "draftify and have some stub-like coverage" is viable, but some other such proposal might be. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case is the encyclopaedic topic here. Some years ago, I wrote Mirvahedy v Henley, an article about a case that had a significant impact on law about animals. I didn't write Hossein Mirvahedy, even though he was the victim and the sources talk about him quite a lot, because I saw that what the sources were really about was the case.—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "Foschi v" title that would fit the multiple proceedings in the various forums and her role in the related sports events that received their own coverage, and there is, as demonstrated in the multiple independent and reliable sources years later, significant biographical information available about her, her later swimming career, her education, and her legal writing. The significant events are considered a 'case study' by some sources for various reasons, but as an encyclopedia article, she is the topic based on all of the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue to feel that those are wild exaggerations of the encyclopaedic value of the local newspaper sources and I join issue with you on every word you wrote after "forums".—S Marshall T/C 20:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no prohibition on using in-depth coverage in regional or local news as a source for biographical coverage, and Newsday is not the only source of biographical information about her, her education, and her swimming career. Sources I have highlighted in this discussion include:
    Also, per WP:YOUNGATH, High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage, and she seems to easily meet this notability guideline, based on the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More coverage of her swimming career: FOSCHI BOUNCES BACK WITH OPEN-WATER VICTORY (South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Aug 17, 1996, e.g. "Jessica Foschi won her first U.S. Swimming National 5K Open Water title"), SWIM RECORDS BUOY SECTION VI AFTER TITLE HOPES TAKE DIVE (Buffalo News, Nov 19, 1995, e.g. "Sophomore Jessica Foschi of Friends Academy (Long Island) set state records in the 200-yard freestyle (1:51.72) and the 500-yard freestyle (4:46.97)"). Beccaynr (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's do this again.
  • This Washington Post article consists entirely of speculation about Foschi's future career in the light of the doping allegations.
  • This Associated Press article is about quite a few swimmers but it does mention Ms Foschi, reporting that Tom Dolan qualified for the Olympics and Ms Foschi didn't. It then goes on to say she was hoping to qualify for the Atlanta Games, and then talks about the doping allegations.
  • This Associated Press article says she didn't qualify for the Olympic Team after coming seventh out of the eight triallers. It then talks about the doping allegations.
  • This Chicago Tribune article says she didn't qualify for the Olympic Team, and then talks about the doping allegations.
  • This article on some kind of specialist swimming-focused site, with a "high school news" hashtag prominently in its top right hand corner, talks about someone breaking a record Ms Foschi held (specifically a New York State High School record in the 500 metres freestyle). It then talks about the doping allegations.
  • This Florida Sun Sentinel article is blocked here in the UK, which as I mentioned earlier is common with US sites that don't want to comply with British standards of privacy and consent to harvest user data. In the circumstances I do very much hope the closer will click it, read it and evaluate it using their encyclopaedic judgment, rather than relying on these representations about what it says.
  • This Buffalo News article does contain three paragraphs about her at the end: one sentence about setting state records for her age group, followed by two paragraphs about the doping allegations.

I remain strongly of the view that this is a clear case of BLP1E.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These sources, in combination with all of the other sources, show there are multiple events for which she received coverage, and per WP:YOUNGATH, as an individual, she received substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. One of the reasons to have a BLP about her is that she also had a swimming career for which there is substantial and prolonged coverage. This type of coverage, that is about more than her substantial and well-documented role in the significant proceedings related to the doping allegations, also helps demonstrate how per the last line of WP:BLP1E, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event. Also, as a side note, per its Wikipedia article, SwimSwam is not described as 'some kind of specialist swimming-focused site' but instead as "the most-read swimming website in the world" etc. Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should consider multiple articles. At this point we have quite a bit of sourcing and could write one about Jessica Foschi, one about the doping allegations, one about the first legal case (FOSCHI BY FOSCHI v. United States Swimming [46]), one about the second legal case (Jessica K. Foschi v. FINA [47]), and one about the legal discussion initiated by Foschi herself after this document [48]? DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would likely be confusing for the reader, because having to navigate between a collection of stubs, instead of possible subsections or narrative prose within one article, could interfere with understanding the context for which the secondary sources, for various reasons, focus on the totality of the proceedings and their impact on sports generally and sports law. The proceedings happened over the course of 19 months and relate to each other, and none of the individual proceedings appear to be independently notable. Foschi is the common link in the proceedings that are found significant by secondary sources as a whole, and her substantial and well-documented role in the entirety of the process, per WP:BLP1E, supports including her entire experience in her article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good reasons to keep this in one article, listed as Jessica Foschi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources focused only on the legal aspects, and particularly the novel jurisdictional issues, I might advocate for another outcome, but I think we need to account for the volume of secondary commentary on the non-legal impacts on the sport and sports generally that revolve around Foschi as an individual who navigated the proceedings and her swimming career in the meantime, as well as the ongoing reporting on her swimming career, her education, and her legal writing afterwards. Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One article is clearly preferable to several articles. What you do is you write up the case as it appeared before the highest court it reached, and include a section called "Courts below" in which you summarize what the previous courts decided. I disagree with Beccaynr when they say "None of the individual proceedings appear to be independently notable", on the basis of the many sources Beccaynr themself linked in this AfD.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One comment - I did not suggest having 'the case' be the lead article, my suggestion was an article on Jessica Foschi AND additional articles. I think Beccaynr makes good points about a single article, but if there is just one article I feel it should be at Jessica Foschi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are clearly not all about the case in the 'highest court', and the multiple events Foschi was involved in are larger than a 'case', based on the sources. Some of the legal sources focus on a legal aspect, but Foschi's experience is much broader than that, and extends to her well-documented swimming career, i.e. her biography, which developed before, during, and after the extensive proceedings, as well as her education and legal writing, which is also part of her biography. There does not appear to be an adequate way to accommodate all of the sources that cover far more than the proceedings and focus on Foschi in an event-focused article.
WP:BLP1E appears designed to warn us against creating an article about events when a person has a substantial and well-documented role in significant events, and she appears to not meet the WP:BLP1E condition of not having a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event, so this cannot become an event article per WP:BLP1E.
WP:BLP1E also points us to the sports notability guideline as another route to establishing notability, and the sources that report and comment on her swimming career both appear to support her sports notability as well as her notability for more than one event. There is a well-documented narrative that can be written about Foschi, based on the totality of the sources that focus on her. Beccaynr (talk) 17:04, 28 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 redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team#Great Britain. The "keep" comments must be generally discounted because they do not provide sources establishing this person's notability, and therefore fail to address the WP:GNG argument for deletion. To the extent the "keep" opinions argue for inherent notability of Olympic competitors, this argument is unfounded in applicable guidelines. A redirection to where the person is mentioned is an appropriate WP:ATD. Sandstein 15:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Baker (gymnast)[edit]

Percy Baker (gymnast) (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:NOTDATABASE and does not meet WP:GNG as a non-notable Olympian.

He competed as part of a team of 45 British Gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, with his team coming last, with us knowing little beyond that - we don't even know the month he died in. BilledMammal (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Saying Fails WP:NOTDATABASE" is rubbish - "1. Summary-only descriptions of works." N/A here. "2. Lyrics databases." - No, not even close. "3. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" Nothing here is excessive or unexplained. "4. Exhaustive logs of software updates" No, another fail. The individual was a six-time champion. At worst, redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is sourced entirely to databases; it cannot not fail WP:DATABASE. You also don't address the WP:GNG issue - you say he is a six time champion, but we don't know any details - all we know is that he "won six titles as a member of the St Saviour’s team". I would note that I oppose a redirect, as I don't believe a disambiguated redirect is useful. BilledMammal (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Welsh sources on Bibliography of Welsh History. Welsh newspapers online (at least) should have details about him if someone has time to search. At the moment, I don't, but may do later. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for that resource. However, I haven't been able to find any coverage of this gymnast within it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 15 minutes? Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little longer than that, but yes. There are no results for "Percy Baker" combined with any of "Gymnast", "Gymnastics", "Olympics", or "Olympian", and a manual review of all news results for "Percy Baker" between 1900 and 1911 didn't show anything that appeared to relate to this Percy Baker. BilledMammal (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The search should also be for "P A Baker" (I often get hits that way for UK people of that period). The Welsh Newspapers Online website is down for me, so can't run that search for now. Atchom (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; that helped me find this passing mention, and this image, where P A Baker is mentioned in the caption. The same image and caption appears in a few other papers, but again nothing more - no significant coverage. However, if the article is kept that photo is now out of copyright and can be used for the article. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is right to keep these early Olympic competitors even if they don't meet today's notability standards. They were trailblazers. Deb (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Deb (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
    • That's perfectly true. I was informed of the discussion, presumably because of my interest in articles on topics relating to Wales. Deb (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia needs to be built on clear sources. There are none for this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I ran his name through the British Newspaper Archive and found nothing. There is a short bio on the Team GB website (https://www.teamgb.com/athlete/p-a-baker/3I8mslymQLWIfQJxa3lr1a) but it seems to be a rewrite of Olympedia. I tend toward delete. Atchom (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are some mentions, but tricky to find and maybe not passing WP:SIGCOV. Quite a few hits mention him as being part of the gymnastics club, which had won awards as a collective. I would probably lean redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team rather than outright delete. As mentioned above, often in historic sources, sportspeople were referred to by initials rather than full-name and can sometimes be more fruitful in searches. I would wonder if there is more notability and coverage in the club "St Saviours" than the individual. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts, Tony and Deb. The trailblazer comment is especially appropriate. The canvassing accusation is entirely inappropriate. Claiming NOTDATABASE here is not only irrelevant but completely wrong because the article has not been created as a database – its sourcing is a matter for WP:V, WP:RS, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question do we know whether there's any possible music ties. I'm getting a lot about a musical gymnast, specifically in this source and the timing is right. Not enough info yet to evaluate, but as a lead for someone who may have more scholarly access. Star Mississippi 00:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe they are a different person; they appear to have the first initial of "J" and this Percy Baker would have been 12 when that ad was published. BilledMammal (talk) 02:34, 27 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 Draftify. People here broadly agree that the topic is possibly (or in the view of some probably) notable, but that the current content is terrible: an unsourced aggregation of ghost stories presented mostly as facts. On that basis, the outcome most consistent with this discussion and the core policies of WP:V and WP:NOR is draftification until the content is substantially improved. Sandstein 15:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts in Spanish-speaking cultures[edit]

Ghosts in Spanish-speaking cultures (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 only is this almost entirely unsourced, and comprised of anecdotal WP:FRINGE information, but I don't believe this actually meets the WP:GNG as a topic. This is not about stories or beliefs in a particular culture or region, but an overly broad topic that covers multiple countries, with their own distinct cultures, across three continents. While there are certainly sources to be found about the beliefs in ghosts in the individual countries included, I can find no actual reliable sources that discuss this overall concept of ghosts in "spanish-speaking" cultures as a singular topic. Rorshacma (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I pointed out that specific countries/cultures are easily sourceable, as evidenced by the Ghosts in Mexican culture article. The issue is that there needs to be actual reliable sources that discuss the overall broad topic of ghost beliefs in all "Spanish-speaking cultures". Taking sources that just discuss one specific country/culture/region, and then combining them to make this article, is pure WP:SYNTH. I would have advocated to WP:SPLIT this into smaller articles on the specific cultures like the aforementioned Mexico article, but the fact that this is almost entirely unsourced means that there is no actual material that would be suitable for preserving for those smaller articles. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be strange indeed if no academic had discussed the evolution of ghost stories from their roots in pre-Christian Spain to their flowering in the American colonies, where they were enriched by indigenous beliefs, comparing and contrasting variants in different regions. This is surely a valid topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rorshacma, for clarity, and to avoid us arguing about two separate things, are you basically saying that the subject is quite possibly notable, but the current article should be deleted on TNT grounds that it really needs a bottom-up, start-from-scratch re-write, none of the existing material being of any use? Elemimele (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elemimele - I'm basically actually arguing that the topic, as presented, is too broad to pass the WP:GNG, as I have not been able to find any sources that discuss the overall topic of ghosts in all "Spanish-speaking cultures" (as in, any one source that discusses ghosts in the Spanish-speaking regions in North America, South America, and Europe together as one subject). The individual regions listed in the article are sourceable, but combining them to make one "mega topic" is WP:SYNTH unless reliable sources that discuss the overall topic can be found. Don't get me wrong, I think the current article would be WP:TNTable regardless due to its current state, but that fact is somewhat of a moot point as my main issue is with the topic as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search in Google Books on fantasmas en america latina turned up this page which discusses ghosts in Latin America such as La Llorona, of 10th century Andalusian origin. This book is a collection of traditional stories and beliefs concerning appartions, ghosts, goblins etc. in Hispanic America, collected from different cultures. There are surely many more examples. It is a rich topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rorshacma thanks for the helpful clarification. On that basis, I am sitting on the fence. I would be sympathetic to a TNT deletion of the current article, but I think the subject may be genuine. It seems very likely that the Spanish colonists would have taken their folk-tales and cultures with them across the globe, and as a result there would be links across Spanish-speaking cultures today, and I'd imagine someone will have written about it. I'm not finding great sources by Googling (for example this completely inappropriate source [49] says it, but it's basically one person's blog-opinion). The article desperately needs sources; if I'm finding rubbish ones, I hope that someone with better books or google-skills will be able to find good ones. Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To roughly paraphrase Patricio Rivera Olguín (2013), Fantasmas del norte: Imaginarios, identidad y memoria, RIL Editores, p. 22,

... In its primary stage, society searches for the origin of these phenomena and explains them from tragic deaths that cut off a life before it has finished its natural course. Thus classic ghostly figures emerge, such as La Llorona (originally from Andalusia during the 10th century war against the Moors), adapted to local characteristics and widely reproduced in different places in Latin America.

La Llorona is known in many Latin American towns, with an origin that dates back to the times of the Conquest. Various narratives tell about the relationship between an indigenous woman and a Spanish man, from which a son or daughter is born who is rejected by the family of the mother, who is forced to kill the child. The stories generally state that she drowns her child in a river and then weeps forever because of the pain it causes her.

Ghosts in Latin America are conceived around the concept of the soul in pain, which represents the soul or spirit of a deceased who wanders in sorrow or remains in the places where he previously lived. Sometimes they announce burials or treasures, which prevent them from resting if they are not discovered ...

Other books that may be useful, from a quick scan:

  • Francisco Franco Gaterol (2006), "Animas, fantasmas y capillas. Representaciones de la muerte en Venezuela y Latinoamérica (exploración etnológica e histórica)", Revista Presente y Pasado
  • Sonia Montecinos (2003), "Mitos de Chile: Diccionario de seres, magias y encantos", Biblioteca del Bicentenario, Editorial Sudamericana
  • Sebastiaan Faber (2008), "Fantasmas hispanistas y otros retos transatlánticos", in Mabel Moraña (ed.), Cultura y cambio social en América Latina, Iberoamericana Editorial
  • Silvia Espinal; Óscar Abenójar; José Manuel Pedrosa (2008), Cuentos y leyendas inmigrantes: duendes, fantasmas, brujas, diablos, santos, bandidos y otros seres inquietos e inquietantes de Hispanoamérica y de algún misterioso lugar más : relatos, PdC
  • Charlotte H. Gartenberg (2018), Haunted Stories, Haunted Selves: Ghosts in Latin American Jewish Literature, City University of New York
  • Enrique Ajuria Ibarra (2017), "The Latin American Ghost Story", in Scott Brewster; Luke Thurston (eds.), The Routledge Handbook to the Ghost Story, Routledge
  • Lisa Morton (2015), "La Llorona and Dreamtime: Ghosts in Latin America and the Southern Hemisphere", Ghosts: A Haunted History, Reaktion Books
  • Juliana Martínez (2020), Haunting Without Ghosts: Spectral Realism in Colombian Literature, Film, and Art, University of Texas Press

There are many other potential sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep This would seem to pass GNG. My concern is that perhaps joining Hispanoamerican and Spanish ghost folklore/culture in one page is not necessarily warranted by the way the sources organise the material. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and give the editors some time to update it. Potentially notable if there is coverage. But currently no effective sources. Draft is best place for it. scope_creepTalk 14:33, 26 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 12:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Manuel Olmos[edit]

Ángel Manuel Olmos (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)

Nothing to indicate that this person meets the notability guideline for professors. I also strongly suspect that the article's creator, MANISAHOTAUK (talk · contribs), is an undisclosed paid editor due to their editing pattern and their choice of topics. This is one of the least notable of the articles they've created. Graham87 08:27, 18 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 11:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gole Afroz[edit]

Gole Afroz (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 cited sources are: (1) the self-published Genealogical Gleanings of the Indian Princely States, which doesn't mention Gole Afroz by name, but says in passing that her mother "named it [a college] after her oldest daughter", and (2) a publication of uncertain nature, probably published by Gole Afroz College. There is no clear way to verify the second source, but based upon how it has been used, it does not seem to contain significant coverage of her. Searches of the usual types, in English and Bengali, found no sources other than the college website, which says little more than it is named after her.[50]

Per WP:WHYN, "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." There are already two sentences about her in each of Gole Afroz College and Singranatore family. There is nothing more to merge, and not enough information about her to stand on its own. Worldbruce (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Erstwhile royalty --SalamAlayka (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

??? --Worldbruce (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the mere fact she is/was a member of a royal family makes her notable by default. See Wikipedia:ROYALTY for more information. SalamAlayka (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for elaborating. Calling her "royalty" is a stretch. Her grandfather was the third and last zamindar (often translated as landlord or landowner) of Natore, a position abolished in 1950, when she was 3 years old. The family was certainly wealthy and influential, but more analogous to landed gentry than a royal family. Whatever she or her grandfather was, the link you provided is merely to a WikiProject, it doesn't lead to any guideline regarding notability. It is well established that notability is not inherited. She is not notable just because her family is. There needs to be significant coverage of her in independent, reliable sources. Without that, it is better to describe her in the article about the family. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- She is not notable, meets zero guidelines when it comes to notability. Does not have the required in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I am okay with the article being Redirected to her family page.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I spent 30 odd minutes trying to find sources that covers the subject, and nada. Not a single source that covers her significantly. 99% of them are regarding the school and her ancestral roots. There's no significant coverage on "her." IMO, the subject is not notable enough for a standalone article. Info about her can be merged into the school's page. Tame (talk) 18:02, 18 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 redirect to JWST. Redirects are cheap Star Mississippi 02:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2MASS J17554042+6551277[edit]

2MASS J17554042+6551277 (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)

That star is only notable as JWST's calibration object, and probably wouldn't be expanded anytime in the future, and so it's reasonable to redirect this page to JWST. Artem.G (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NASTRO. Notability is not inherited. Praemonitus (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retain: Although it is an unexceptional star it was still the first light full resolution image from the JSWT and as such is therefore notable if only for the huge number of faint background galaxies revealed.
    NB 2MASS J17554042+6551277 is in Draco and was *NOT* the original brighter star HD84406 in Ursa Major used in the earlier mirror alignment phase.
    It should not be merged with HD84406 because they are *NOT* the same object! HD84406 would be 09473055+63145209 in the 2MASS catalogue notation.
    There is a comparison with the ground based DECaLS 4m telescope image here: https://twitter.com/GJDonatiello/status/1504394237844115456 2A00:23C7:BB89:DD01:D514:85EE:DE04:1096 (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to JWST. Artem.G (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC) (as nominator)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable according to WP:NASTRO guidelines. Aldebarium (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Surely now that this star has been in the center of so much attention, enough reliable sources will pop up describing it that it will quickly reach notability as per WP:GNG? -- intgr [talk] 17:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- LAZA74 (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. Praemonitus (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (leaning on keep) It is the main subject of the latest (as in released just an hour ago) Sixty Symbols video.[1] One, The video states that it is utterly unremarkable... Not far nor near, not big nor small, not bright nor faint... Yet... they made a video about it! So is it notable for being unremarkable, yet used in a most remarkable telescope as one of its first photos? Two, the video points to this discussion, that's how I found it, so there may be more (fans...) coming from there soon. - Nabla (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because you can write a solid, but singular, sentence about a subject, doesn't mean it also needs an entire article. A single mention on the JWST page is enough. The Sixty Symbols video brought me here, it doesn't have a call to action or anything like that. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 20:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 2MASS J17554042+6551277 is as notable as HD 84406 for the same reason; it's a JWST alignment target. I suggest a List of JWST alignment targets page listing all of them (both of them for now, maybe more later) with redirects for all targets listed. Philh-591 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there is nothing to merge, the whole article is a single sentence. And I think that a list of targets that would contain just these two objects are not really useful. Artem.G (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HD 84406 also fails to satisfy WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. It is just a mundane star with no studies. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The sentence is useful and belongs somewhere. I would add it as a footnote in the JWST article, to where the star is first mentioned there. A list of JWST calibration targets may make sense in the future, if there is a reasonable number of them, i.e. more than two and less than, say, 25.--agr (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with JWST. It was, like above, the The Sixty Symbols video that brought me here. Relevent to the main article, not a stand alone. Edmund Patrick – confer 15:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is now more than a one liner. The article has a wikidata-object, 3 references and 3 links and interesting content. There are tons of twitter discussion and comparisons with other telescopes like Spitzer. --Kolossos (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Same reason as Philh-591. It's has the same notability as HD 84406, and I do think that a List of JWST alignment targets would be more useful. Washing Machine (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Given the notability of the star, it deserves an article. Is this the same object as HD 84406? If so, merge it into that article. If they are different objects, keep.
  • Keep People will search for this after noticing the pathbreaking JW photo, and the article gives a bit of context. Suspect that professionals will also be drawn to it hereafter and gather more data, despite its unassuming nature. JMK (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. Vitaium (talk) 23:49, 25 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.

References[edit]

  1. ^ A Briefly Famous Star (and calibrating the JWST) - Sixty Symbols: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbj8pMfK9Ek
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westgen Technologies Inc.[edit]

Westgen Technologies Inc. (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:NCORP and promotional. Bbarmadillo (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Doctormatt (talk) 06:51, 18 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 11:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of America Band[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. The last nomination kept under it the guise of winning a major competition, but the governing body, World Association of Marching Show Bands, itself has no assertion of notability, much less a Wikipedia page. As for the Winter Guard International championships, they seem to compete in the lowest division possible, so considering that a major competition also seems moot. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Doctormatt (talk) 06:57, 18 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 until such time as a merger target is created. If & when it is, happy to provide the history for attribution and merging Star Mississippi 19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election[edit]

2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election (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 does not seem to have been a notable election. The Republicans didn't even run a candidate and the incumbent Democrat won in a landslide versus a third-party candidate. I cannot find sources outside of Lancaster itself that bothered to cover it. Apocheir (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lancaster is a large enough city to be on the Elections in Pennsylvania infobox, there is no reason to delete it, despite the candidates that may have ran. GeorgeBailey (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review WP:GNG. Notability requires significant coverage, and this page's references consist of only routine local news coverage and the city's own website. I didn't find any significant coverage of this election elsewhere, although you're welcome to try as well.
    That said, notability just means it doesn't deserve its own page, not that it doesn't deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all. Another option for this page (and maybe the other Lancaster elections) would be to merge some of the content to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, List of mayors of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and/or Danene Sorace. Apocheir (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge Not notable enough to have its own article. Doctormatt (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep or mass merge there are articles about a ton of lancaster elections, so either merge EVERY article into one, or give it time to grow, -a really self-degrading name(speak of the devil)- 16:39, 18 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. There is no consensus to delete the text. Whether it should be kept or merged can be discussed editorially. Star Mississippi 02:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Pepe[edit]

Rare Pepe (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 very little coverage here of "Rare Pepes" themselves to justify a standalone article, and most sources are used to support auxiliary statements about Pepe the Frog or NFTs in general. (Contested prod). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enough coverage to get be ft in a Sundance award-winning documentary ( https://www.ala.org/awardsgrants/node/37520 ), drive over 11M results in google and span a digital Art market estimated to over 3B$
The page should stand and if anything, be enriched. 94.111.62.198 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:"coverage" isn't a Wikipedia criteria for a valid article. Rare Pepe as a crypto art project pre-dates Ethereum based concepts and deserves such credits. Such claims are validated with Bitcoin data (sources are provided in the article). Siphersipher (talk) 01:34, 26 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. Star Mississippi 02:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brenton L. Saunders[edit]

Brenton L. Saunders (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:RESUME, nothing else of note. Thirty4 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just a resume. Insufficient notability. Doctormatt (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thirty4 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thirty4 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable person in the health industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article sucks, that's not a reason to delete it. Please read WP:BEFORE. If you look for sources, there are literally tens of thousands of results, a myriad of sources covering this guy, who has been CEO of some incredibly huge corporations, including Allergan, which was sold in 2016 for 40 billion dollars. There is absolutely no way that the nominator nor those who voted to delete (yes, I realize one of them is a long-term abuser of AfD who is regularly discussed at ANI), no way that BEFORE was performed.Jacona (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jacona! I found many web articles mentioning this person, but I did not find much that is not promotional in some way. WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME makes the claim that "Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable." This not a policy, though, and the "generally" makes me wonder if this article's subject could be one who is not included. Also, Allergan is not on the current Fortune 500, as far as I can tell (the Fortune website is not very friendly...). So I'm wondering: is there anything notable about this person besides their CEO-ness? Doctormatt (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as I said above, Allergan was sold in 2016 and is part of AbbVie, no longer an independent company, so no, you won't find it on a current listing of the Fortune 500. When considering the notability of a person, or a company, we care about history, a current list is fine of course, but we care about the entire history, not just today. At the time this was nominated for deletion, there were 17 references in the article. There are so many available sources in major publications including [53], [54], [55], just to cover three of the top general business mags, all of which are widely different, all of which include his name in the title, not just some obscure mention. Seriously, competency is required. To participate in AfD, one should read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and should follow WP:BEFORE. Nominations like this one are disruptive. Jacona (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jacona. It is true that I have not often involved myself in articles related to the business world; I am trying to become more competent and help with AfDs. I have read WP:BEFORE, etc.; feel free to not mention them again. From those links you shared, I still cannot tell what makes this person notable; my understanding has been that having press coverage does not automatically imply notability. If you were to claim sufficient notability for anyone who was CEO of a company above a certain size (or that appeared on some list like the Fortune 500), I could understand that as a nice, fairly clear definition of notability that you are using for some business people. Should I take that as sufficient evidence of notability here? Is that the general consensus at WP? Thanks! Doctormatt (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before participating at AfD, you can and should review the relevant guidelines, especially when there is an "OUTCOMES" section, and observe the process for a while. While there are no rules that state as such, you can be sure that people in certain jobs are going to be notable, without looking for sources, because you know there will be sources. I personally wouldn't waste my time considering whether the president of a company that sold well-known products, was publicly held, and is widely associated with the word billions was notable, I'd assume they most likely were. In this particular case, since the nominator brought it here, I did waste my time, and with the barest of efforts on my part, uncovered a myriad of significant coverage of the man. It's not about what is in the article, it's about whether the information for the article exists. And (since I've seen several recent nominations have ignored these), it's not whether the person is currently in the position, it's not whether the sources are online, it's not whether the sources are behind paywalls, it's not whether the sources are in English... The correct question is "do the sources exist?"Jacona (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jacona! Thanks for continuing to talk to me. I agree there are many sources of certain kinds of information related to this person. I am trying to figure out what information in those sources show that the person is notable; it has been my understanding that mere "coverage" of a person does not automatically makes that person notable. Is being CEO of a large company enough for notability (assuming good sources), or is the standard that the person has to have done something (invented something, improved some manufacturing process, etc.) notable? Is the mere holding of high-paid positions sufficient to make a person notable (again, assuming good sources exist)? Thanks! Doctormatt (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable Puglia1999 (talk) 23:50, 25 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. MBisanz talk 01:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Maimon[edit]

Israel Maimon (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)

Almost entirely uncited and very promotional. Would be too much work to try to rescue, even if he is notable enough, which I doubt. WP:TNT applies, I think. Edwardx (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If "Government Secretary of Israel" is "an extremely important position", one would expect there to be an article here. And it is not one of the many positions listed here the current Thirty-Sixth Government. Are there any English language sources? Edwardx (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, Edwardx. This article is BADLY missing on Enwiki. Hewiki has it. Each Government Secretary of Israel on Hewiki is notable and (but temps) has an article in Hewiki, a Wikipedia known for its tough standards! It also has a navigation template for this position. gidonb (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, gidonb. As you are fluent in both languages and have an interest in the subject, might I suggest that it could be helpful if you were to start Government Secretary of Israel here on en.wikipedia? That way, we can better assess the notability of Maimon, especially if other holders of the post have an article on en.wiki. Otherwise, the Maimon article may well get deleted. Edwardx (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Edwardx! I'll keep it in mind. Since Maimon also passes the WP:GNG by the sources others and I provided, and he has held also other important positions, I'm not too worried about deletion. The comments above me implied what I spelled out. Articles should be judged by WP:NEXIST. Maimon clearly passes the bar. But if I find time, I'll do it. It's a huge deficit of Enwiki. gidonb (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made a quick beginning. Since, I reached the conclusion that Secretary of the Government (Israel) is a better name for the article. Secretaries of the government exist in additional countries. Maybe typical for countries with a former British dominance? Just a thought. The current president of Israel, Isaac Herzog, is the former Secretary of the Government. gidonb (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable Puglia1999 (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. The office does appear to be a national government office along the lines of a chief of staff for the government, which would typically be a notable position for whoever holds it. BD2412 T 06:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am agree with Gidonb, also sufficient citations were provided by Gidonb. Brian O'Conner 07:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep In the UK, such a person would be a Sir with something like really heavyweight CMG or KMG gong, making them automatically notable, so I think he is definitely notable. If the article references are not put in to verify the currenty content that is missing verification, I will do a copyedit on it, later tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 14:26, 26 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. Star Mississippi 02:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Yonker[edit]

Matt Yonker (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 a single reference is exclusive to Matt Yonker. It is all about the band. The single that does mention him, ref 6 is non-RS, meaning is not a reliable source. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG scope_creepTalk 00:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only significant coverage of subject is in an interview which is considered non-independent/primary. -Liancetalk/contribs 23:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Both statements above are false. Numerous sources are not about the band Less Than Jake, one of which is his allmusic page, which is not an interview.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The above vote mentioned Yonker's AllMusic page, but that is just a bare list of credits. That voter also complained that not all of the article's sources are about Less Than Jake, which is true but those about other bands merely list Yonker (a.k.a. Drastic) very briefly as a member. Someone may have believed that Yonker is eligible for his own article because he has been in several different notable bands, but every single reliable source to be found are about the bands and not himself. Therefore he has no independent notability as a musician in his own right. If anyone is concerned about alternatives to deletion, Yonker could possibly be redirected to Less Than Jake as the most famous band he's been in, but I don't see much point in that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:18, 20 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_March_18&oldid=1079483043"