- 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. Arguments have been made that much of the coverage does represent routine local campaign coverage - but significant national and international coverage, focused specifically on the subject, does seem to have developed over the course of the debate. Later participants increasingly seem in agreement that there is enough coverage to easily satisfy the general notability guideline. ~ mazca talk 20:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kimberly Klacik
- Kimberly Klacik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
rThis article vastly fails to establish notability. Running for congress alone does not automatically establish notability. The only argument for her notability is that her campaign ad attracted attention. Even then, I am pretty sure that there are YouTubers that have had videos garner more views than her ad that don't even have articles. It's a very very weak argument for notability. SecretName101 (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not meeting WP:NPOL, if the subject wins an election, then reconsider creation. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I would have nominated this myself if I'd seen it moved to mainspace. She isn't notable, the soundbytes in various unreliable sources are meaningless and she woefully fails WP:NPOL. Unless of course, in the extremely unlikely event she beats Kweisi Mfume, she fails all our criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to the current election in which she's running. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - fails NPOL, passes GNG. I understand the rationale behind the delete votes, but I see sources and for other bio articles, that's all that's needed. Don't see a need for NPOL to override GNG here. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- None of the sources are substantially about her though. They're ranging from puff pieces to unreliable publications with soundbytes. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete NPOL exists because virtually every political candidate would pass some understandings of GNG. She does not pass any reasonable test of long term impact at this time. This will change if she wins reelection, but that has not occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, at least for the time being. In addition to her campaign, Klacik is also scheduled to speak at the 2020 Republican National Convention tonight; and with the attention her campaign video has gotten I would tend to think it would be a good idea to keep the article for now and perhaps revisit this issue depending on how she does on November 3. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Plenty of people speak at conventions, some even garnering headlines. Not all of those people are notable enough to garner their own Wikipedia pages. Unless their speeches literally dominate the headlines the way Khizr and Ghazala Khan did at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, I don't believe it garners them the notability to have their own Wikipedia page. SecretName101 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Concur with ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia and WAVY 10 Fan. Klacik's notoriety surpasses and transcends that of the article for the proposed redirect. She is a rising star on the right, has already garnered international attention, and her profile is only increasing on the national stage, especially with the upcoming election. And the fact that she has been chosen to address the 2020 Republican National Convention will further advance her notability. This young lady has made a name for herself, whether she wins her election or not. She is here to stay, regardless of those who may wish otherwise. WP:NPOL states, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." In that aspect she exceeds the standard, having been covered by national media, in addition to meeting WP:GNG. All of that evidence combined is more than sufficient grounds to justify this article. - JGabbard (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- That "international attention" is not at all indicated in the article itself. While she does generate a lot of search results
(a possible argument for keeping this article, so long as the article itself can establish notability), it appears many articles that are search results for her name are more about the 2020 special election in general than specific to her or her own campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)- She's not even generating actual attention in *Baltimore* where she's running...Praxidicae (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- That "international attention" is not at all indicated in the article itself. While she does generate a lot of search results
- Delete As pre-election candidate bios go, this one does not meet WP:GNG. KidAd talk 19:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Maryland as an appropriate and usual outcome per WP:POLOUTCOMES. There is no indication that the subject passes WP:NPOL. No prejudice against recreation if the subject wins in November. --Enos733 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Can you please identify the sources you think provide significant coverage? Neutralitytalk 22:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Of course, please see:
- [1] - full article and biography by Associated Press.
- [2] - full article by Fox News
- [3] - interview by The Washington Post.
- [4] - full article on CBS Baltimore.
- [5] - full article on CBS Baltimore.
- [6] - full article in New York Post.
- [7] - full article on Fox News.
- [8] - full article in The Washington Post
- [9] - full article by BET.
- [10] - full article by Fox News.
- [11] - full article by WBAL Baltimore.
- [12] - full article by Fox News.
- [13] - full article on KUSI San Diego.
- [14] - full article by Fox News.
- [15] - full article by The Hill.
- [16] - full article in New York Post.
- [17] - biography in the Baltimore Sun.
- [18] - full article by Fox News.
- [19] - editorial about Klacik in Baltimore Sun. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- That seems like ROUTINE campaign coverage. The bulk of the coverage is local. The Washington Post article is the most detailed/in-depth, but note that it appears in the "local" section. The AP article is also not a "full article and biography" - it's a brief (6 short paragraph) article just reporting on Klacik's convention speech. This seems to me to be analogous to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield (candidate for Senate in Iowa had coverage, but consensus was to redirect to election page). Neutralitytalk 14:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per NPOL. Not clear that a YouTube video and a bunch of Fox News "articles" meets GNG either. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Per other comments { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - remarkably little in-depth sourcing from independent sources at the moment. Coverage might be sufficient to meet GNG in the future but not there yet. Neutralitytalk 22:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and the article fails WP:NPOV. --WMSR (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: An example of her notability reaching Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_eLOhSJMvY 60.241.110.166 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment: An individual, on this article's talk page, accused this deletion nomination of being partisan, an attempt to drown out the subject's message. They accused the assertion she is not notable enough of being "leftist nonsense" writing, "With her widespread current media coverage, Kim Klacik is more relevant than probably +80% of individuals who currently have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them. With her message starting to gain momentum, the political left in the United States wants her silenced to the greatest degree possible. Therefore, any motions made to have this page taken down must be assumed to be politically motivated."
The assertion that this is politically motivated or meritless is completely false. In addition to the arguments already laid-out, there are two additional policies of Wikipedia she fails:
•The first is Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Recentism. We commonly use the "ten-year test", which asks, "Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?". Ms. Klacik may have a flash-in-the-pan second of semi-relevance, but are they truly notable in and of themselves and in ten years will there be anything written here about them remotely notable? There is a valid argument that she strongly fails that test.
•The second is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This includes that Wikipedia is not "a newspaper". This policy states that, "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."
SecretName101 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)- Keep - per Magnolia677. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails notability. Very scant information on her (viral ad, retweeted by Trump, invited to speak at 2020 Republican convention, member of a Baltimore Republican committee, runs a non-profit). Summing up Magnolia677’s "significant coverage in reliable sources:"
- 1 - AP. Short article with very little personal info (2 sentences). Mostly about being invited to speak at Republican convention, Trump having tweeted her ad, and last year’s social media post.
- 2, 7, 10, 12, 14, 18 - Fox News. Fox providing a platform for basically the same Klacik interview/talking points.
- 4, 5, 11, 17, 19 - local Baltimore news outlets
- 6, 16 - New York Post. Tabloid, not RS
- 9 - Bet UK - an online betting site? Hardly a reliable source, and I don’t see Klacik mentioned there.
- 15 - The Hill. Content: viral ad, will speak at Republic convention, running against Mfume.
- 3 - Washington Post. Not an interview. They show her ad, accompanied by one sentence:
Kimberly Klacik, who is running for late Elijah E. Cummings’s seat in Maryland, told the RNC on Aug. 24 that successive Democrats had run Baltimore "into the ground."
- 8 - Washington Post, local section. Spoke at Republican convention, viral ad (quote:
Walking through West Baltimore streets in red stilettos and a red dress
). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)- "Bet UK - an online betting site". For goodness sake! Black Entertainment Television. All you had to do was read the article and you'd know this. Your effort to dismiss these articles is remarkable. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- No effort at all, aside from having had to read all that significant coverage, except for the BET link which reroutes to BET International - no article there or on Wayback Machine for August 19. What are your criteria for "significant coverage?" For example: You described your first source like this:
full article and biography by Associated Press
. The article has a total of 192 words - scheduled to speak at the convention, running against Mfume after losing in special election, member of the Baltimore County Republican Central Committee, founder of "Potential Me," Trump posted her ad, social media posts showing trash in Baltimore. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)- Whatever it's value, I'm having no trouble here accessing the BET article. A problem on your end, maybe?
- Meara, Paul (August 20, 2020). "Trump Endorses Black GOP Candidate Kim Klacik Who's Running For Elijah Cummings' Former Maryland District". BET.com.
- -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Must be a problem on my end. Is this it, three sentences? Donald Trump has long been a critic of Baltimore, which he’s previously labeled in July 2019 as a “disgusting” and “rodent infested mess,” so when Kim Klacik, a candidate for Maryland’s 7th District ran an ad reflecting dilapidated neighborhoods in the city, the president praised her. The ad, which has gone viral, attacks Baltimore City’s Democratic leadership. Klacik, who is Black, is running for Rep. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's about 45% of the article. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Must be a problem on my end. Is this it, three sentences? Donald Trump has long been a critic of Baltimore, which he’s previously labeled in July 2019 as a “disgusting” and “rodent infested mess,” so when Kim Klacik, a candidate for Maryland’s 7th District ran an ad reflecting dilapidated neighborhoods in the city, the president praised her. The ad, which has gone viral, attacks Baltimore City’s Democratic leadership. Klacik, who is Black, is running for Rep. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- No effort at all, aside from having had to read all that significant coverage, except for the BET link which reroutes to BET International - no article there or on Wayback Machine for August 19. What are your criteria for "significant coverage?" For example: You described your first source like this:
- "Bet UK - an online betting site". For goodness sake! Black Entertainment Television. All you had to do was read the article and you'd know this. Your effort to dismiss these articles is remarkable. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect per Enos. ser! (let's discuss it). 16:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep per El cid, el campeador. ~ HAL333 20:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the extensive coverage listed above by Magnolia677; meets GNG as campaign has been covered in many outlets. --Pudeo (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite: this article is badly written and lacks a stable, objective point of view. Kim Klacik is the nominee of the Republican Party and a speaker at the Republican National Convention (this is the reason that I read this article about her). As such, she gains sufficient notability to have an article. James Nicol (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- James Nicol, being a nominee does not satisfy the requirements in WP:NPOL. --WMSR (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP based on ample coverage found, she clearly passing the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 17:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The article Kimberly Klacik is getting a good amount of traffic, 24,734 views within the last 8 days, compared to 777 in 30 days for Operation PBFortune which is today's featured article (as of now), or 6,583 for Jacobo Árbenz. Not that the number of page views means it's necessarily relevant, but maybe something to consider? Ll1324 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep There is enough independent coverage here as i'm aware - which means this article passes WP:GNG. This is not as the same as Claudia Conway (as it was driven by tabloid coverage instead). SMB99thx my edits 13:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Much discussed in media, apparently due in part to an expensive advertising campaign. The article is indeed slanted in the suject's favor, and that ought to be fixed, but the subject is easily notable. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Many things are wrong with this article, quality-wise. But I think for now it’s simply too soon. Let’s call a spade a spade: she isn’t a notable businessperson by Wikipedia standards; she didn’t win the special election to fill Rep. Cummings seat, and she’s not notable as a strategist. For that reason, I say delete for now. Being controversial itself doesn’t warrant an article with nothing to write on. Trillfendi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Media profile is established and rising; is at least as strong as Amy McGrath who has had a page for three years after losing a House of Representatives race. Possible user bias in favor of deletion because this candidate is a Republican.Viperstick (talk) comment added 06:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- McGrath is the 2020 Democratic challenger of Senate majority leader Mitch Mc'Connell. She lost her House race by 3 percent, not 75 like Klacik. She's also one of the first female fighter pilots in the US Armed Forces and the first woman to fly a combat mission in the United States Marine Corps. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Viperstick: Again, I take great offense to the implication that those favoring deletion are practicing "political bias". Looking at this page, you should be able to clearly see that valid arguments are being made in favor of deletion, whether or not they sway you to the conclusion that deletion is warranted. This discussion has clearly been about whether this article meets proper criteria as outlined by Wikipedia policy, not whether any involved wikipedians like or agree with her politics. SecretName101 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I believe you are correct, SecretName101, and that is as it should be, at least in theory. Nevertheless, I still find it "interesting" to observe that those favoring redirect and/or deletion with declared political affiliations on their userpages are all leftists. I might also add that your initial contention for the deletion of this article no longer holds water due to developments of this past week, as reflected by the strong trajectory of recent consensus. With now tens of thousands of views, it would be absurd to NOT have an article on Klacik. - JGabbard (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- *sigh* Page views don’t determine inclusion notability. That aside, conservatives may seem to think everyone is out to get them but it’s really possible to put your politics aside and look at things for what they are. That’s our job here. I’m liberal down to the socks, yet I turned Heidi Cruz, whom I agree with on zilch politically nor her husband, into a Good Article. Trillfendi (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- @JGabbard: Pageviews are not a criteria for keeping an article. And what are the "developments of past week" that change the circumstances completely?? Are you refering to the fact that she spoke at the RNC? Plenty of people who delivered speeches more notable than her's at this year's conventions will not be receiving articles. Speaking at a convention is not a criteria of notability. SecretName101 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I never said that view counts make Klacik notable, but they do serve to signify her relevance. And this level of frenetic deletionist activity is primarily reserved for, shall we say, "relevant" political figures and high-profile hot topics. And just because objective editing to promote articles clashing with one's political views is "possible," and certainly may occur at times, hardly makes it probable or a commonly-occurring practice, especially when it comes to such consensus discussions. The WikiMafia hatchet men (and women) never rest, and I have seen them in action way too many times to be that naïve. - JGabbard (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- @JGabbard: Pageviews are not a criteria for keeping an article. And what are the "developments of past week" that change the circumstances completely?? Are you refering to the fact that she spoke at the RNC? Plenty of people who delivered speeches more notable than her's at this year's conventions will not be receiving articles. Speaking at a convention is not a criteria of notability. SecretName101 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- *sigh* Page views don’t determine inclusion notability. That aside, conservatives may seem to think everyone is out to get them but it’s really possible to put your politics aside and look at things for what they are. That’s our job here. I’m liberal down to the socks, yet I turned Heidi Cruz, whom I agree with on zilch politically nor her husband, into a Good Article. Trillfendi (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I believe you are correct, SecretName101, and that is as it should be, at least in theory. Nevertheless, I still find it "interesting" to observe that those favoring redirect and/or deletion with declared political affiliations on their userpages are all leftists. I might also add that your initial contention for the deletion of this article no longer holds water due to developments of this past week, as reflected by the strong trajectory of recent consensus. With now tens of thousands of views, it would be absurd to NOT have an article on Klacik. - JGabbard (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Viperstick: Again, I take great offense to the implication that those favoring deletion are practicing "political bias". Looking at this page, you should be able to clearly see that valid arguments are being made in favor of deletion, whether or not they sway you to the conclusion that deletion is warranted. This discussion has clearly been about whether this article meets proper criteria as outlined by Wikipedia policy, not whether any involved wikipedians like or agree with her politics. SecretName101 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- McGrath is the 2020 Democratic challenger of Senate majority leader Mitch Mc'Connell. She lost her House race by 3 percent, not 75 like Klacik. She's also one of the first female fighter pilots in the US Armed Forces and the first woman to fly a combat mission in the United States Marine Corps. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This discussion should have been closed when she appeared at the RNC. Googling "Kim Klacik" news articles returns around 200,000 results, seems like most major news outlets have articles directly mentioning her, e.g. WaPo, Fox News, CNN, Baltimore Sun and virtually every major Maryland news station, NY Post, I could go on and on. Consensus appears to be strongly trending toward keeping the article, and I invite any non-involved editor to close the discussion. CatcherStorm talk 08:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hope you’re aware that “Google hits” is a fallacy. Trillfendi (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- They linked to Google NEWS hits, which are perfectly valid in this context. Dream Focus 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Have you looked at those results? I did - I'd say 90% local news (Baltimore Sun, WBAL, CBS Baltimore, etc.), the rest Fox News, Washington Times, very few RS (along the lines of "How to watch the Republican Convention," list of speakers). Also a few articles about other Kims (Kardashian, Jong Un). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CatcherStorm: How did her RNC appearance cancel this discussion? Her speech has not been considered among the more notable remarks even from the first night, as far as the coverage I've seen. And there are plenty who delivered more notable convention speeches this year, who will not be eligible for Wikipedia articles. SecretName101 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Have you looked at those results? I did - I'd say 90% local news (Baltimore Sun, WBAL, CBS Baltimore, etc.), the rest Fox News, Washington Times, very few RS (along the lines of "How to watch the Republican Convention," list of speakers). Also a few articles about other Kims (Kardashian, Jong Un). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- They linked to Google NEWS hits, which are perfectly valid in this context. Dream Focus 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hope you’re aware that “Google hits” is a fallacy. Trillfendi (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Whether you like it or not, the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. She has received significant coverage from several reliable sources as seen above. Of course a lot of the coverage is going to be local, she is a local candidate. Local coverage does not disprove notability. There is nothing in GNG that states local news is somehow less reliable. Here is an news clip/interview from CNN Politics. Surely you consider this a "reliable" source? What about this Washington Post article directly mentioning Klacik? Is this blog entry from NBC News directly mentioning Klacik and her campaign also considered unreliable as well? What about this BBC News clip directly mentioning Klacik? I'm eager to hear your excuses. CatcherStorm talk 01:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Her last run garnered only a quarter of the popular vote, definitely not a notable run. And the only argument I'm hearing that her current run is itself "notable" is that she had a well-watched video. Hundreds of people run as their party's nominees in races for congress every two years, they don't all get Wikipedia articles. Outside of her current run for office (which is of very questionable notability) how is she notable? And it's not about reliability of news sources, it is about whether those news sources actually provide the kind of coverage that establishes her individual notability. SecretName101 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here's one item of "significant coverage" in those search results:
In a sure to be hot and contentious race
. 75:25—not THAT hot or contentious. I haven't a clue how those Google search algorithms work. I suspect that they just count the number of times the name, e.g., "Klacik," appears in a news article because those 200,000 search results actually only yielded 158 articles like this one on CNN Business. The article is about Trump's attacks on Elijah Cummings but Klacik is mentioned nine times. They also list the name when it's not mentioned in the article but in "Related" and "You might be interested in" clickbait or for no apparent reason as in this result. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC) BTW, in Baltimore City she received six percent of the vote in the April 2020 Special Election. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC) CNN: Neither a news clip nor an interview. It's two sentences introducing "viral" ad. BBC: Mentioning her as one of four Black speakers at the RNC. NBC: Viral ad got attention of Trump, may have future in Republican Party (if she does we can revisit) because it can't attract Black voters. Washington Post: That's not an article, it's an op-ed by rabid Trump supporter Thiessen. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here's one item of "significant coverage" in those search results:
- I don't intend to reply to this discussion any further, as I am only wasting my time. You have managed to find the most inane excuses to discredit the sources given. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, biased, or unobjective. An op-ed by a Trump supporter doesn't make it any different from an op-ed by a Biden supporter, and it certainly doesn't mean it can't be used to prove notability. And like I said, whether you want to accept this or not, the article blatantly passes GNG. There is significant coverage, and the sources are secondary and reliable. Nothing you say or think can change this fact. Regarding your claim that the sources don't demonstrate notability because they aren't "articles" or because they are "only covering a viral ad", audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. I understand you two feel very strongly about censoring Klacik's article from Wikipedia, as many others do, but at this point you are only lying to yourselves. Have a good day. CatcherStorm talk 12:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep GNG demonstrated, add [20] to the list of sources. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 07:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Iskra Menarini
- Iskra Menarini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I refer you to the previous AfD, and would invite the community to consider whether the sources that have now been added are about Ms Menarini or whether they're actually about Lucio Dalla and the Sanremo Festival.—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 22:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 22:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 22:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 22:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete For a WP:BLP there needs to be multiple, in-depth, independent secondary sources, which unfortunately are not there. The Gbook references are a passing mention. There is no social media coverage and even if the lady was siging up and down the peninsula for the last decade, there would be still some mention. I suspect it is very small fanbase that published the two albums, but it is not enough by a long to establish notability. I think all the sources are on the article, if there was more they would be present. scope_creepTalk 11:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Paris One
- Paris One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. I don't think WP:NRADIO applies because it's an internet radio station and thus the listenership can't be independently verified. Hits in mainstream media ([21], [22]) are not for this org. Sourcing in article is dead or primary or both. Article in frwiki has the same sources as this one, which IMO are not enough. Thinly sourced and tagged for notability for over a decade. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nominator is correct that WP:NRADIO generally doesn't apply to internet stations, and this fails the GNG. Raymie (t • c) 02:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Barely found anything about the station. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 2018–19 UEFA Champions League#Semi-finals. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Liverpool F.C. 4–0 FC Barcelona
- Liverpool F.C. 4–0 FC Barcelona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Even as a Liverpool fan, I'm not sure a page for this match can be justified. It wasn't a final, so fails the notability guidelines. Yes, it was a spectacular comeback, but there have been plenty of similar ones in the Champions League down the years and they don't have articles. Indeed, if this match has an article, why not the Tottenham v Ajax match which was just as dramatic. I don't think this match meets the notability guidelines, it smacks of recentism and in my view, should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete If an article like this should be created, then there are thousands of matches that also needs to be created.
Josedimaria237 (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:NEVENT, not having a lasting effect or so. There are simply too many comebacks to make this one notable in its own right. Eumat114 (Message) 12:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails notability guidelines as stated above.Less Unless (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect From what I read, the write-up has some historical relevance in UEFA Champions League. I don't actually know the intention of the author anyway. I believe that redirecting it to UEFA Champions League is a better option. The historical facts between the two clubs shouldn't be thrown away just like that. My submission anyway. Mariah200 (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2018–19 UEFA Champions League#Semi-finals. Does not merit separate article, but that is relevant section. Is that a better target @Mariah200:? GiantSnowman 21:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Unless Wikipedia is to become a host of all comebacks in major sport events, this match doesn't warrant a standalone article. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessary to have a standalone article on this. Number 57 08:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect/Weak Keep REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to the season. What separates a truly notable match from all the rest would be the real-life legacy to it. This one's aftermath section revolves around Liverpool winning their league matches afterwards (completely unrelated) and the spurious claim that "many fans" believe this result led to Ernesto Valverde being sacked - eight months later. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:78AE:DDDF:40E2:ECF8 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep far more notable than any Charity Shield game, far more notable than any "MLS All Star Game", or Super Cup style game. ItsKesha (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect as it falls on the upper end of WP:MILL and WP:RECENTISM, definitely a dramatic event and significant in the Euro histories of Liverpool and Barça, much of the content could be moved to their Euro articles if it hasn't already. But the result itself didn't break any records so I'm not really convinced of its long-term notability in terms of the scoreline itself, as the years pass it will likely be remembered that Liverpool got a big comeback, Barcelona had a defensive collapse (becoming their trademark) and Origi scored that mad goal from a corner, and that will be/already is recorded in various articles in some way. Crowsus (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I've just checked Liverpool F.C. in international football competitions#Resurgence – the Klopp years (2015–present) and the match isn't mentioned there - at all!! The season as a whole is barely mentioned up to the final. That kind of thing should be sorted before standalone articles. Crowsus (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Unless it is some major shock or a cup final, I don't think this passes FOOTY notability. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think that major shock, would be a understatement... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 07:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
CammWess
- CammWess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously - this may be just mistaken), but we don't usually assume that a 4th place finish in a talent competition (The Voice) is a sufficient notability indicator, right? And that appears all that this singer has going for himself. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with OP - not notable - if this is their sole work. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Natalie Monroe
- Natalie Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced biography of a former porn actress turned Instagram model. The subject lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources required by WP:BASIC. The article's sources consist of IMDb, multiple minor mentions in a sports blog, an user-sourced wiki and and Amazon listing for a Hustler issue. An independent search for RS coverage yielded only trivial mentions. The only claim to WP:ENT notability is being a popular Instagram model, but RS support is lacking. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Additional comment: I forgot to mention that the article's biographical content neither cites sources nor is supported by the references provided. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: She has a profile on wikiFeet X. Does that count as being notable? She is also on Pornhub. Zoe1013 (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Open wikis like wikiFeet and other WP:USERGENERATED content sites are unacceptable as references for facts or as evidence of notability. Pornhub and the other video sharing sites also count as user generated content. Beside, nearly every porn performer in existence is on Pornhub. Just being there doesn't make a performer notable. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: She has a profile on Famous Birthdays and on IMDb via https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6584218/bio Ajpoundz (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:RSPS, Famous Birthdays is blacklisted as spam. In addition, "There is consensus that Famous Birthdays is generally unreliable. Famous Birthdays does not provide sources for its content, claim to have an editorial team, or claim to perform fact-checking. Do not use this site for information regarding living persons." IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information as IMDb biographies are user submitted. In principle, IMDb has an entry for anyone who has appeard on screen since 1895. That does not make an entertainer notable. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete based on the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guideline. The actress does not pass our WP:N with no reliable sources to be found. Lightburst (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be low level actor and porno star, without any signigicant work Fails notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sourcing in article does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. My search reveals no other sources that would help to constitute sigcov. There are a couple of articles at Pro Sports Extra, but their editing standards are unclear and there's nothing from any other other sources that would even remotely help the sourcing to meet the bare minimum of 2 sources. Samsmachado (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Four refs out of six are dud. No effective referencing. scope_creepTalk 11:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 07:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Luther Study Center
- Luther Study Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It appears to be non notable due to lack of references in the article. I checked Google and I couldn’t find any outside references. Zoe1013 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete this article on an inter-church body lacks any actual sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Tim Leunig
- Tim Leunig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Don't think this man meets notability criteria, and combined with lack of citations would put this forward for deletion Trumpkinius (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Trumpkinius (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Citations are OK to pass WP:Prof for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC).
- Weak keep. Considering his field, he does not have many citations; but adding to it that he received a prize [23] for his article "Time is money: a re-assessment of the passenger social savings from Victorian British railways", I believe it is enough impact to fulfill WP:NACADEMIC. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 20:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep – seems notable. I've added one citation in the article also. – Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 20:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Erica Nlewedim
- Erica Nlewedim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only notable for being a housemate in the ongoing Big Brother Naija (season 5). —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 20:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 20:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 20:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 20:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. A Google search returned sources about Big Brother Nigeria, and that is not enough to establish notability. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete A fail on WP:GNG. All I can find really is the Big Brother appearance and I'm not sure appearing once on a game show is enough. EverybodyEdits (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Big Brother Naija (season 5). Sourcing exists (ie. Daily Post Nigeria) to support her being potentially notable for Big Brother, but that is "one event". Nothing supports her being even remotely notable outside of Big Brother. Hence, redirect because WP:BLP1E. If this does not get redirected, then my vote would be to delete. Samsmachado (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Samsmachado, hey, being a mere participant in an ongoing reality TV show does next to nothing for WP:GNG or in the very least for basic when reliable sources are absent hence redirecting is not really a good idea. Furthermore this is negligible at best. Celestina007 11:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete — Fails to satisfy WP:GNG as no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources could be observed. A before search also she’s an actress but doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perhaps a case of too soon.Celestina007 11:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Fail to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ENT. view,Tbiw (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete — Fails WP:ENT — Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Source (comics)
- Source (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Seems like a very niche piece of WP:FANCRUFT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Another cookie-cutter, cut/paste, drive-by nomination in which there are precisely no specific details about the topic in question. The nomination claims to read the article and searched for sources. How come they haven't noticed the extensive coverage out there about Jack Kirby's The Source as an influence on George Lucas' The Force? The nomination's claims are not credible. And where is the consideration of alternatives to deletion? It's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT + WP:IGNORINGATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Did you read the source in question? Yes, Kirby's Source is mentioned in Taylor's book [24] - but it is a tiny, 4-sentence paragraph, that does not seem to meet GNG requirement of in-depth coverage. Worse, the paragraph only states that the similarity is in the fact that the main character is fighting the villain who is their father, says nothing about Source inspiring the SW's Force. That seems to be an OR / mistake based on the part of whoever added this to the article. So no, even if their rhyme, we don't have a reference that claims that The Force was inspired by Source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment: My vote is pending, and will depend on if Andrew Davidson can demonstrate the extensive coverage. Darkknight2149 05:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)- Delete: I haven't been able to find enough coverage to justify this having its own article, and even the source listed only justifies a mentioning at Force (Star Wars). Darkknight2149 22:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Just a nitpick, but per my comment above, I think the source does not make a connection between source/force, only between some unnamed characters Kirby created and and Anakin/Luke, as in a son-and-father duo turned enemies and using the same mystic force. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Insufficient sourcing to fulfill WP:WAF and WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Let this page stay. It is a major concept of the New Gods comics. I am also agreeing with @Andrew Davidson: on the latter parts of his comment. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Utter failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. The nominator doesn't even claim to have done a competent basic Google search, a telling omission. Looking just at one aspect of the nom's claims, "we don't have a reference that claims that The Force was inspired by Source", a straightforward search on "source kirby force lucas" produces page after page of potential sources/references, including Paste Magazine ("Why Jack Kirby is (Probably) the Forgotten Father of Star Wars and Rogue One")[25], The Daily Beast[26], The New Republic[27], The Hollywood Reporter ("The Unmistakable Pop-Culture Influence of Jack Kirby")[28], and L.A. Weekly ("Frank Zappa to Jack Kirby")[29]. There's a large volume of coverage in The Jack Kirby Collector magazine, which has run 80 issues so far and may not be academic prose, but is far more literate and reliable than the glorified fan pages we use as sources for pro wrestling BLPs (!) and splatter horror films and creators. If you don't even claim to make competent, quality searches, your opinions on notability are frankly worthless variations on IDONTLIKEIT. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- As another editor just says below, those are good sources... for article on Kirby. But here we discuss the concept of the Source. None of those aticles contains any in-depth discussion of the concept of the Source, just a few sentencs at most, mostly PLOT summary (what Source is), with a one line saying "it might have inspired the Force in SW since it is a very similar concept"). So ok, we found sources connecting Source to Force, but this still doesn't merit a stand alone article. Those articles give equalu amount of lines (which is very few) to other stuff, like Doctor Doom = Darth Vader, etc. Maybe there is even an entire article to be written about Jack Kirby as an inspiration for the Star Wars or such, but the aricle on the Source remains a piece of fancruft, since outside the one sentence relference to it as a possible The Force inspiration there is nothing else we can say about out-of-universe (well, ok, we can write a sentence about who created it, I guess). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- "If you don't even claim to make competent, quality searches, your opinions on notability are frankly worthless." Aptly put. Advice that would have been well worth taking. Ravenswing 01:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The Paste Magazine reference that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz posted, as well as the American Comic Book Chronicles coverage, demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - The coverage (I found) is about the artist, Jack Kirby, not about the concept of the Source....I'm leaning to !vote delete for now, but I'll watch for more convincing "Keep" arguments as well. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Didn't find any coverage about the subject either. And the sources above? Is this some sort of joke? That Paste Magazine piece mentions the subject in all of two sentences. The Daily Beast pieces mentions the subject in just ONE sentence. So does the New Republic piece. So does the Hollywood Reporter piece. So does the LA Weekly piece. This kind of namedrop coverage is the very definition of "trivial mention," and doesn't come remotely close to meeting WP:SIGCOV. Like GizzyCatBella, I'll pay attention if any valid keep rationales do show up, but unless I've been misreading deletion policy all these years, insulting the nominator OR the intelligence of AfD participants are not among them. Did Hullaballoo Wolfowitz think no one would check? Ravenswing 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Learn to read better, Ravenswing. As I said quite clearly, the sources you derogate were specifically cited to address Piotrus's counterfactual argument that the Source/Force connection couldn't be referenced. There's now no support for that argument. The nom's god-awful search practices are clearly demonstrated. Yet we're left to accept on faith that forty-year old print sources don't need to be checked, because, you know, WP:WECANTBEBOTHEREDNOTTOBESUPERFICIAL is a guiding light these days. And where the hell do you get off casting aspersions of bad faith and intent to deceive at me? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- While I promulgated Ravenswing's Law some time ago, perhaps it's time for a corollary: that the degree of vehemence with which an editor bellows about the notability of a subject (especially while avoiding providing significant coverage) is in inverse proportion to the degree for which significant coverage actually exists. Ravenswing 05:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Learn to read better, Ravenswing. As I said quite clearly, the sources you derogate were specifically cited to address Piotrus's counterfactual argument that the Source/Force connection couldn't be referenced. There's now no support for that argument. The nom's god-awful search practices are clearly demonstrated. Yet we're left to accept on faith that forty-year old print sources don't need to be checked, because, you know, WP:WECANTBEBOTHEREDNOTTOBESUPERFICIAL is a guiding light these days. And where the hell do you get off casting aspersions of bad faith and intent to deceive at me? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep based on the many magazines which cover the subject. The article passes our notability guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: If you've found any sources which provide significant coverage to the subject -- the GNG being the only notability guideline that could apply here -- could you identify them for us? Ravenswing 21:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Fourth World (comics) - There has been no demonstration of significant coverage of this concept demonstrated so far. As stated by several editors already, the multitude of sources presented here barely even mention the actual topic, let alone have enough coverage to sustain an article. However, as it is a pretty major part of the mythology of Kirby's Fourth World, and it is currently not even mentioned on the main article on that topic, merging information on the Source there, so it is included with the general overview of the setting, would be a good way to present the information. Rorshacma (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Seems to be references to star wars, Kirby, and the comics themselves, rather than much independant discusson of the concept. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete due to insufficient coverage in third party sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. There are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in the context of coverage about the authors or universe. Would not object to a merge/redirect as per Rorschacma. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm impressed by the ferocity with which editors here insist that they're competent to assess the extent and quality of coverage in sources they can't be bothered to review. Not one of the delete !voters here has shown the slightest effort to take even a cursory look at the eighty issues of The Jack Kirby Collector I discussed above, or the multiple book length Kirby biographies, or anything else published in the pre-Internet era. Given the ubiquity of the acceptance of the Source/Force connection (which the delete proponents couldn't even find), where do you think the information comes from? Is information created by elves working in hollow trees? Or is the claim supported by print sourcing -- the kind of thing that researchers worked hard to find for centuries? The insistence here that information that can't be found in a five-minute Google search just isn't worth finding is breathtakingly stupid. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Reply: I'm impressed by the ferocity you exhibit defending sources you fail to identify. No editor is going to go through eighty issues of anything or read every published biography on Jack Kirby just on your airy speculation that somewhere within those pages some significant coverage of the subject surely must exist. Either identify the exact issue/s and the exact page numbers of the relevant information -- it being the explicit responsibility of editors wishing to preserved challenged material to do so -- or admit you haven't reviewed those materials yourself. Prove us mistaken, or stop wasting our time. Ravenswing 05:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's as brain-dead an argument as I've ever seen an experienced editor advance at AFD. If a large body of potential sourcing exists, the default should be to assume that nothing relevant can be found, because honest effort is too much to ask of Wikipedia editors. If you want to make sloth the sixth pillar of Wikipedia, go ahead and propose that. I would eagerly participate in that discussion. Besides, your own search habits look to be piss-poor as well. in this recent AFD you initiated, you were pretty much hung out to dry for missing easily available sources, as well as missing substantive coverage in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, easily found in a competently executed Google search. So spare us all the snark and the snide. You're NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, you're working to tear an imperfect one down and turn it into an online "notability" game. Stop wasting constructive editors' time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES/WP:GOOGLEHITS have been long acknowledged as bad arguments. Stop tormenting the dead horse, particularly in a way that clearly goes against WP:AGF/WP:CIV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Translation = you've got nothing. You have no idea, in fact, whether the "sourcing" is "relevant" or not, because you haven't read it yourself. That's' where I get off on thinking that you're not acting honestly or in good faith. You want to save the article, it's been eleven days since your first post here. You've had plenty of time to come up with the citations you claim exist. Ravenswing 02:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Boy, you two guys must be really butthurt by having your dreadful search skills exposed. Ravenswing, that edit summary of yours is a flagrant NPA/civility violation, far worse than anything I've said that you complain about -- and those complaint, which almost always came yo nothing, reflect the fact that I am willing to go where you tinbadgers fear to tread, and be among the first to blow the whistle on the likes of now permabanned users like Qworty and Scalhotrod. I'm still particularly amused by the ANI where some of your comrades argued that I was so fast and so accurate as to be disruptive. Wonderfully inane stuff you're bringing up. And, once again, Ravenswing, you've gone out of your way to misrepresent what I said. When discussing The Jack Kirby Collector, I commented rather plainly on the quality of articles in the publication. If you actually were willing to AGF, you ought to conclude I have read it myself, But you don't. You extend good faith to editors who say that sources don't exist, but not to editors who disagree with and say they do. And that's really not a thing an honest guy would do. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Let's read things: Instead of squabbling over who has read The Jack Kirby Collector and who hasn't, I have an idea: let's read The Jack Kirby Collector! "Love of Anti?-Life" from Jack Kirby Collector #71 (2017) is an article with three pages specifically examining and analyzing the Source. Here's just a few sentences; the article has much more:
- "The assumption underlying this writer's entire interpretation of Kirby's concept is that The Source is non-physical in essence, but is also the the origin of all things physical. The essence of all living physical beings returns to The Source upon the death of its physical form, implying that each individual essence is itself immortal and eternal like The Source. The physical wall of The Source, located on the planet of New Genesis, is the communicative portal, the point of contact and fusion between two planes of existence which are part of one reality."
- So what does that prove? It proves that people write for-real literary criticism analyzing Kirby's work in general, and the Source in particular. Pay attention to the first part of that quote: "this writer's entire interpretation of Kirby's concept"... This is an interpretation, written down and published in a magazine. The first person who tries to say that this article is all WP:PLOT will get a massive WP:TROUT in the mail by tomorrow's post. Seriously, y'all, sometimes you can just go and read the thing. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP Sources give significant enough coverage in reliable sources about this, and what it inspired. Dream Focus 03:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for now, because of the sources. It may be beneficial at some point to expand Fourth World (comics) to include a detailed section on the analysis of Kirby's work, in which case this article could be merged into that. Until then it's best to keep this as is. Rhino131 (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep-- In all honesty, I came in here expecting to !vote delete, but when you cut through the angry sentiments expressed on both sides, there are some good sources to suggest notability of the topic, the best being Love of Anti? Live and other coverage in The Jack Kirby Collector. There is also in-universe reliable coverage such as Screen Rant (iffy reliability), CBR, and reliable passing mentions in mainstream media. Alternatively, merge to a suitable target, but I don't think there's a great source to merge it to currently. imo, GNG is just barely met. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 20:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Navarik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This piece of semi-puffery has been around for about 15 years. I tried a news search and found nothing beyond the odd press release. I think it's unsalvageable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MissiYasında&& (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Only hits are press releases. Fails WP:NCORP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I did not find the reliable sources needed to support the article. I could only find press releases and primary sources. Lightburst (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I thought before it was speedy deletion eligible [30] and my mind has not changed. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The current revision of the article does, as does the original, but I didn't want to check every single revision (as a CSD only applies if that's the case for the entire history); it's been here 15 years, another week won't hurt. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, with sadness. They are clearly important in their field, and I was able to establish that they were founded in 2000 by William "Bill' Dobie, Martin Ertl, and Don Hitchen (most respectable source), but they don't appear to have been written about by independent journalists (I specifically searched the Vancouver Sun as a last try). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 07:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Transformation of the Roman World
- Transformation of the Roman World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable research program; I was unable to find any independent sources which discuss it. Note that Ian Wood is not an independent source; he was a participant in the program. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - A TV-series from pretty much before the internet became important. It dosen't surprise if references can't be found in large quantities, but I'm confiden't that they probably are available in some printed or physical form. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oleryhlolsson, The article is not about a TV series, it is about a "5-year scientific programme, during the years 1992 to 1997, founded via the European Science Foundation". Maybe there is a TV series by the same name? (t · c) buidhe 09:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for my mistake, I became somewhat tired after hours of editing. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - According to WP:EFFECT Sechinsic (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Any evidence of a lasting effect? (t · c) buidhe 23:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Over one thousand Google Scholar hits for the phrase since 1997? Versus 161 down to 1992. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- I checked and most of these seem to be citations of book titles, eg "Romans, Barbarians and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity" (2011), "The Transformation of the Roman World AD 400-900" (1997), "Regna and Gentes. The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World" (2002), a 2001 book titled "Transformation of the Roman World", seemingly unrelated to this research project. There's absolutely nothing you could use to write an article on the research project. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's kind of funny to call a research project that spawned 18 volumes that generated thousands of citations "non-notable". Ward-Perkins criticizes it here. He also criticizes it in his book, but not in detail. The great problem is that there are no independent sources because everybody notable was involved. Including Ward-Perkins! The only reason I haven't voted "keep" is because if involved scholars are excluded, then I don't know where to start to write an article. Could we write an article on an archaeological expedition using the published reports of the archaeologists themselves? If that would be allowed, then I don't see why Wood's article wouldn't be here. Srnec (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Books often get reviews from independent reviewers, which could be used to write articles on them, but I don't think notability is inherited from book reviews, as they're unlikely to cover the project much at all.
- The project, being an ESF affair, wouldn't have affected researchers who are outside the ESF. If these didn't write about the project itself, maybe it's not as important as you think it is. (t · c) buidhe 19:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's kind of funny to call a research project that spawned 18 volumes that generated thousands of citations "non-notable". Ward-Perkins criticizes it here. He also criticizes it in his book, but not in detail. The great problem is that there are no independent sources because everybody notable was involved. Including Ward-Perkins! The only reason I haven't voted "keep" is because if involved scholars are excluded, then I don't know where to start to write an article. Could we write an article on an archaeological expedition using the published reports of the archaeologists themselves? If that would be allowed, then I don't see why Wood's article wouldn't be here. Srnec (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- I checked and most of these seem to be citations of book titles, eg "Romans, Barbarians and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity" (2011), "The Transformation of the Roman World AD 400-900" (1997), "Regna and Gentes. The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World" (2002), a 2001 book titled "Transformation of the Roman World", seemingly unrelated to this research project. There's absolutely nothing you could use to write an article on the research project. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Over one thousand Google Scholar hits for the phrase since 1997? Versus 161 down to 1992. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Any evidence of a lasting effect? (t · c) buidhe 23:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:EFFECT. A search on Google Books or Google Scholar quickly confirms that the The Transformation of the Roman World project has profoundly influenced recent research on late antiquity. Krakkos (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Unless you would like to cite some sources that state there is such an effect, it does not help just to assert it. (t · c) buidhe 10:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Scholar hits for a combined "European Science Foundation" and "Transformation of the Roman World" are around 400 (and the hits remain good until the end). These are not random phrase hits, they specifically reference the results and impact of the programme. I agree that WP:EFFECT is satisfied. (The refs provided by Krakkos, above, are surprisingly shite though. What's the point of proffering that as an argument...?) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. After extended time for discussion, I find that there is consensus to delete this list as failing WP:LISTN. In theory, of course, editors with an interest in doing so could create a list of the tallest buildings in every state, county, city, town, village, and neighborhood. While this seems natural for cities known for the height of their buildings like Chicago, and New York, at some point, there must be a cutoff. The consensus here represents a definition that the city for this list is below that cutoff. BD2412 T 00:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama
- List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As with many other "tallest buildings in X" articles, I can find no indication that Montgomery has notably tall buildings, or that it is so unusual that it warrants having such a list regardless. The buildings themselves are not notable either - only one still has a link, and the others that had articles were recently deleted on notability grounds. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 10:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Satifies Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:LISTN
(also Wikipedia:Other stuff exists establishes precedent).Djflem (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- How does a list with only one notable entry satisfy those criteria? Spiderone 07:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists establishes precedent"? Anyone who's been contributing as long as you have has got to know what a ridiculous argument that is to make at AfD. But since we're talking precedents, allow me to refer you to the precedent set over the past year for such "other stuff":Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Sandy Springs, Georgia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Peoria, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Aurora, Colorado, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Ludhiana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Gary, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Aylesbury, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Metairie, all of which closed as delete except the last, which closed as redirect since it was unsourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
As someone who's been around awhile, I've read the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, which states:
In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid... When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes...Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars...As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments related to existing notability policies and guidelines in deletion discussions, and also to consider otherwise valid matters of precedent and consistency, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged...
Interesting how you've used my mentioning the essay as an attempt to validate your argument. Is one to suppose that by doing so you don't actually consider it so ridiculous at all? One can note that that the reference to the essay is parenthetical & not the basis of the rationale, and that in the reply other points provided have been conveniently ignored.Djflem (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- It seemed redundant to call out your other points when Spiderone had already done so; no need to repeat myself. It's ironic that you quote a paragraph that reads "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged...", considering that's exactly what you did in your initial keep vote. Also, you're bitching about me supposedly conveniently ignoring things, but I notice you opted not to mention the large precedent for deletion that made up the remainder of my comment...there's a phrase for that sort of thing, if I recall correctly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wrong. I did not counter the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name in my initial keep vote; I parenthetically referred to it. I will strike that since it appears to be a distraction and allow what I clearly stated (and cited): satifies Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:LISTN" to stand on its own and give you to the opportunity address it, which you have not yet done. Djflem (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- So again, you have no comment to make on the precedent that within the last year or so, these types of lists have generally been deleted after being challenged at AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wrong. I did not counter the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name in my initial keep vote; I parenthetically referred to it. I will strike that since it appears to be a distraction and allow what I clearly stated (and cited): satifies Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:LISTN" to stand on its own and give you to the opportunity address it, which you have not yet done. Djflem (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
- Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
- Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. The lack of a parent article in which it can be embedded does not exist and there no need or requirement for it to exist in order for the list to exist.
- Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
- Wikipedia:LISTOUTCOMES: This list is in accordance with consensus of outcomes because it is limited in scope, based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, has verifiable content, and has a logical reason for its construction. Djflem (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please demonstrate how a list of the heights of not-notably-tall, not-otherwise-notable buildings is not trivial. You could apply your non-argument above to any arbitrary list of statistics, no matter how frivolous. Assuming I had the information from the local property registry, I could write a list of the widest buildings on main street in my hometown and you would accept that as useful encyclopedic content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you have the information and can verify it, I suppose you are more than welcome to make your theoretical list and see how consensus develops around keeping/deleting it, but until such time, please keep your points relevant & based in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, because the above "suppose I" is actually the non-argument. Please also refrain from telling me what I would accept, 1)because you don't and 2) because it's rude.Djflem (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- So you can't demonstrate that the present list of non-notable buildings is not simple trivia, got it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- As a contributor you are welcome to your opinion/claim/assertion and are welcome to demonstrate it. As an administrator, got anything based in policy or guidelines? Djflem (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NOTSTATS, for one, and WP:SALAT, since you brought it up. In what way is a list of the heights of mostly non-notable, not-notably-tall buildings not simply a trivial pile of meaningless statistics? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are welcome to the opinion about what you consider trivial and to ignore the other information provided in list if you so chose.Djflem (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, sorry, so now we're supposed to judge the utility of the list whose topic is "tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama" based on...the other information in the article? Can the goalposts stay in one place, please? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- No changing goalposts, list format has stayed the same, though vastly improved. And yes, now would be a good time to start to see all the information provided in it (other than the heights of the building), if you haven't already.Djflem (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, sorry, so now we're supposed to judge the utility of the list whose topic is "tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama" based on...the other information in the article? Can the goalposts stay in one place, please? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are welcome to the opinion about what you consider trivial and to ignore the other information provided in list if you so chose.Djflem (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NOTSTATS, for one, and WP:SALAT, since you brought it up. In what way is a list of the heights of mostly non-notable, not-notably-tall buildings not simply a trivial pile of meaningless statistics? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- As a contributor you are welcome to your opinion/claim/assertion and are welcome to demonstrate it. As an administrator, got anything based in policy or guidelines? Djflem (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- So you can't demonstrate that the present list of non-notable buildings is not simple trivia, got it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you have the information and can verify it, I suppose you are more than welcome to make your theoretical list and see how consensus develops around keeping/deleting it, but until such time, please keep your points relevant & based in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, because the above "suppose I" is actually the non-argument. Please also refrain from telling me what I would accept, 1)because you don't and 2) because it's rude.Djflem (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please demonstrate how a list of the heights of not-notably-tall, not-otherwise-notable buildings is not trivial. You could apply your non-argument above to any arbitrary list of statistics, no matter how frivolous. Assuming I had the information from the local property registry, I could write a list of the widest buildings on main street in my hometown and you would accept that as useful encyclopedic content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is a well sourced article which passesWP:V and WP:LISTN. When we have RS we keep the article/list. Montgomery is the capital of Alabama and the 2nd largest city in Alabama. Notable buildings. To delete the list would be a disservice to our readers. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- References can be factually accurate without indicating notability. A suite of references that confirms the height of individual buildings does not confirm the notability of the overall topic of the list. If there were articles discussing the height of buildings in Montgomery, Alabama, as some kind of outlier, then that would indicate the notability of the topic. But that's not what has been inserted into the article, and I hope the closer takes that into account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP Sometimes articles like this are kept, sometimes deleted. Some have links to articles about them, some just have references about them. They are notable enough that their height is mentioned, that a key aspect to any building. Dream Focus 01:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I hope the closer takes note that this comment is pure sophistry, and fails to actually make a policy-based argument. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Blue links prove a list article is useful for navigation. There are also references proving this subject is discussed so its a valid list article for that reason as well. Dream Focus 03:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, there are references that verify some of the facts in the article, but there are no references that discuss the topic of the height of buildings in Montgomery as a general concept. That's not the same thing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Also, the argument about bluelinks is somewhat misleading. The majority of the bluelinks in the list are to companies or institutions which own the buildings, not to the buildings themselves, which again are generally not individually notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- I'm not sure this was explicitly stated anywhere above, but this starts to get into WP:NOTDIR #6 (Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations). We already have List of tallest buildings in Alabama, but even that's pushing it (the top entry there doesn't even crack the top 100 nationwide). Further narrowing by city in a state of mostly unremarkably tall buildings doesn't make sense. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Deacon Vorbis you should !vote on a few more AfDs so it does not look like you are following the ARS after a contentious ANI. Lightburst (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The irony of this comment is incredible, considering the bloc voting committed by the ARS constantly (as in this very AfD). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hey PMC, I forgot to place the notice for ARS so I just did now. And I have nothing against your nomination of the list. From time to time these lists get nominated. I feel like the list is notable and others do not. Lightburst (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- No bloc voting has ever occurred, many have checked thoroughly and were never able to find any such thing. I check the list articles and commented in plenty of those opened right now, and have done this for years. Others show up at lists from that as well. So far I'm the only person that voted after Lightburst to KEEP. Dream Focus 03:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- ^^^That is true... Dream Focus follows all of the lists at AfDs and so do I. Just checked August 17-23rd Dream Focus !voted on 11 list AfDs. Contrast that with DV who !voted on 3 AfDs since August 8th and two of the AfDs were articles nominated by ARS. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Lightburst, I don't know why you'd claim that you just placed the ARS notice, considering you placed it before you even commented at this AfD.♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- ^^^That is true... Dream Focus follows all of the lists at AfDs and so do I. Just checked August 17-23rd Dream Focus !voted on 11 list AfDs. Contrast that with DV who !voted on 3 AfDs since August 8th and two of the AfDs were articles nominated by ARS. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- No bloc voting has ever occurred, many have checked thoroughly and were never able to find any such thing. I check the list articles and commented in plenty of those opened right now, and have done this for years. Others show up at lists from that as well. So far I'm the only person that voted after Lightburst to KEEP. Dream Focus 03:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hey PMC, I forgot to place the notice for ARS so I just did now. And I have nothing against your nomination of the list. From time to time these lists get nominated. I feel like the list is notable and others do not. Lightburst (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The irony of this comment is incredible, considering the bloc voting committed by the ARS constantly (as in this very AfD). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Deacon Vorbis you should !vote on a few more AfDs so it does not look like you are following the ARS after a contentious ANI. Lightburst (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, when you said placing the ARS notice I thought you meant listing the article on the ARS page. Fair enough. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I have been on vacation for a while. But I will get it together. Lightburst (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Deacon Vorbis: As clearly stated in Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.... Please refer to Category:Lists of buildings and structures.Djflem (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- But the pile of other deleted lists of tallest buildings in minor city X would seem to indicate that these don't fulfill any such purpose. I think anyone would agree that making lists of the tallest buildings per street in Montgomery, Alabama would be inappropriate per things like WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR (mentioned already), no matter how well-sourced. So the line is there somewhere. I'm arguing that this list is on the wrong side of it. I'm basing that, as I said, on the fact that there's already a list for buildings in Alabama, which is already not very remarkable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would suggest that your citation of Wikipedia:IINFO is in itself indiscriminate since this list is not any of the things mentioned there, but rather as detailed above fulfills: Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:LISTN. (And since Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is again mentioned, I refer you, to Category:Lists of buildings and structures, which is replete with "Lists of X of Y" of many cities of many sizes and and to the other pile: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Tirana (merge), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri (keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee (merge), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey (redirect),Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of buildings and structures in Metro Moncton (keep) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Metairie (redirect), which clarifies that some articles are kept, some deleted, and some are find Alternatives to deletion). I would likely agree about the per street thing you're talking about, but that ain't this article. Djflem (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- But the pile of other deleted lists of tallest buildings in minor city X would seem to indicate that these don't fulfill any such purpose. I think anyone would agree that making lists of the tallest buildings per street in Montgomery, Alabama would be inappropriate per things like WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR (mentioned already), no matter how well-sourced. So the line is there somewhere. I'm arguing that this list is on the wrong side of it. I'm basing that, as I said, on the fact that there's already a list for buildings in Alabama, which is already not very remarkable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Deacon Vorbis: As clearly stated in Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.... Please refer to Category:Lists of buildings and structures.Djflem (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:HEY applies here: August 15 <> August 24 Djflem (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- It would if any of the sources cited were actual in-depth reliable sources about the topic as a whole, but all that was added was fact verification about individual non-notable buildings, so that's hardly a HEYMANN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The Heymann Standard... "is invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion...", as this one has.Djflem (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons cited by User:Djflem 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Although the individual entries are sourced, the topic as a whole fails GNG as it has not received RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 12:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment One other thing I neglected to mention is that this list also runs afoul of WP:OR. Unless there's a comprehensive list that this is being pulled from, there's no way to verify that there are no buildings shorter than entry #11 but taller than entry #12, for example. I guess we could call this "List of buildings in Montgomery by height", but again, that just tends to highlight the cross-categorization issue I mentioned earlier. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I noticed this issue as well and removed the Rankings column. It's now being discussed on the talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Absent sources treating these as a group sufficient to meet NLIST, there's no difference between this page and any other individually sourced cross-categorization (how about "list of buildings in Walla Walla built between 1900-1920 and home to a coffee shop after 1995" or "list of buildings in Santa Fe listed chronologically according to movies they've been seen in"). That there are other similar articles only means that: that there are other similar articles. It doesn't mean this one is notable. The only argument I can see that bypasses notability would be that a list of building heights falls into Wikipedia's role as a gazetteer, making it a standard list for any place rather than letting the sourcing tell us which places we should have them for, but realistically there's no way there would be consensus for that interpretation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- https://www.emporis.com/statistics/tallest-buildings/city/102202/montgomery-al-usa and other places that list buildings in an area, always have a list of the tallest buildings in that city. Emporis is a reliable source, and "is frequently cited by various media sources as an authority on building data". Whenever a new building is announced to be built, if its going to be the tallest in the city, or anywhere near that, the news media gives mention to that notable fact. Official government websites listed information such as the The Bell Building "was the city’s tallest structure when it was built in 1910" [34]. Dream Focus 17:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're adding to my point. (a) Official government websites ... used to verify individual entries, and (b) a database. We're not looking for V, we're looking for N. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- It shows its a notable part of their city's history, those responsible for entering in information mentioning that important fact. And newspapers of the day surely listed it also. Dream Focus 17:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Notability is determined by coverage in independent sources. Important to the city is not necessarily important to Wikipedia. Besides, what's in question isn't what to include in the city's article but whether this particular grouping is notable enough for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Absent community consensus, editors seek guidance from the guidelines specific to lists outlined above, which you have not addressed. Wikipedia:LISTN explicitly states: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.) While editors are urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists, it is not a requirement, but simply "one accepted reason" why "List of Xs" are allowed. (not, please note, the specifically mentioned "Lists of X of Y"). Given the lack of consensus about any requirement editors can also take guidance from practice on Wikipedia, where such lists are standard.Djflem (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- If prior practice is important, then we should consider the many "list of tallest buildings in X" AfDs which closed as delete that I linked above. I think that gives a clear indication of the community's thinking on the utility of such lists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- And also the consider the many "list of tallest buildings in X" AfDs which didn't close as delete that I linked above.Djflem (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Those list were all different circumstances and reasoning. And some other deletion discussions for list of tallest buildings ended in KEEP. Dream Focus 19:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are indeed highlighting a problem with the wording of the guidelines. The answer is not, however, to have arbitrary debates about what's "informational" or to say that because we have particular lists for some cities, it must therefore be relevant to all cities (or just this one) absent source-based reasoning. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Actually I'm highlighting the fact that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines specific to lists clearly state that notability as group are not required for lists of this type and that its source-based reasoning conforms to Wikipedia:LISTOUTCOMES in that limited in scope, based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, has verifiable content, and has a logical reason for its construction. Djflem (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Being the tallest building in an area, city, county, state, region, country, continent, etc., is one of the oldest brags of known to humankind. In ye olden days churches in nearby townships vied to see which could build a house of god nearest to the heavens. This interest shows zero interest in declining. Instead worldwide there is competition to build to world’s tallest building, and many varieties of the claim.So then we have this list. My impression is that this is more of an issue of listcreep on Wikipedia as we also have a list of tallest buildings in the state, so at the least all these entries should be merged there. I think it’s a better reader experience to have this be its own list, and similar lists by city should likely also exist. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not retain content based on something being brag-worthy. We retain content based on sources discussing a topic. Additionally, when you say similar lists by city should also exist, you ignore the strong consensus that has developed to the contrary since 2019. (See the list of similar AfDs that closed as delete which I linked above). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Many of those AfD’s were poorly attended, and almost any day at AfD you can get a different outcome. BTW, presently 125 cities have these lists.
- Wikipedia does not retain content based on something being brag-worthy. We retain content based on sources discussing a topic. Additionally, when you say similar lists by city should also exist, you ignore the strong consensus that has developed to the contrary since 2019. (See the list of similar AfDs that closed as delete which I linked above). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The state of Wyoming has 19 cities. The tallest building in the state is all of 12 stories tall. Going to make for some exciting bragging to lay out the various shopping malls, hospitals, and Walmarts on those lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- WP:Sarcasm is helpful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Guilty, yes. But I don't think my reductio is quite ad absurdum. The point is we need a reason to have such a list beyond just being able to verify the data. I imagine we meet that bar with some small cities with small buildings. For any of the bigger cities in the country (or major cities around the world) it's pretty easy to find these groupings. That makes sense as a way to satisfy notability here (treatment as a group). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve already given that reasoning, and note we have 125 of these lists for American cities already. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Guilty, yes. But I don't think my reductio is quite ad absurdum. The point is we need a reason to have such a list beyond just being able to verify the data. I imagine we meet that bar with some small cities with small buildings. For any of the bigger cities in the country (or major cities around the world) it's pretty easy to find these groupings. That makes sense as a way to satisfy notability here (treatment as a group). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- WP:Sarcasm is helpful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The state of Wyoming has 19 cities. The tallest building in the state is all of 12 stories tall. Going to make for some exciting bragging to lay out the various shopping malls, hospitals, and Walmarts on those lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Djflem's reasoning, and the increased number of notable buildings on the list with their own articles since the nomination. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete While some of the buildings are listed on the NRHP, they are listed for other reasons then their height. This list is not really discussed as a group except in sources that are designed to list random statistics. Yes it's true that the tallest building is noted because it's tall, but the fifth tallest doesn't matter to anybody. WP:OSE is not a convincing argument here. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no requirement that these list have notability by group, so actually that is not a policy based argument either: Wikipedia:LISTN explicitly states: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.)" While editors are urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists, it is not a requirement, but simply "one accepted reason" why "List of Xs" are allowed. (not, please note, the specifically mentioned "Lists of X of Y", such as this). Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT (sorry you don't like the 5th building) and Wikipedia:JUSTNOTNOTABLE are not valid arguments either. (And by the way The 1907-10 Bell Building is architecturally significant as Alabama's finest example of a Sullivanesque skyscraper based on the 1890-1891 Wainwright Building and is locally significant as the finest of the remaining early steel-framed buildings in Montgomery. At the time of its construction, it was one of the two largest buildings in the state, the other building the First National Bank Building located a few blocks away..., now the 5th building on the list.) Djflem (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- So yes, I made an over-generalization. I just don't see the coverage of the topic to merit a list. You're absolutely correct that there isn't a present consensus for how to assess the notability of these lists and that they are sometimes kept at AFD, which means that your argument has just as many flaws as mine, except that I don't think LISTN is met and you continue to expound upon perceived flaws in my argument and substantiating the notability of individual buildings while not establishing that the heights have been discussed as groups by many sources. WP:LISTPURP is not met because that guideline focuses on "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." yet none of these buildings are notable for the sole fact that they are tall. Not a single one (as far as I can tell). Mine and Rhododentrite's arguments overlap heavily. I'd rather avoid restating the same thing over and over, so will stop here (for now). Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- My argument is not flawed. There is no requirement to establish that the heights have been discussed as groups by many sources. Thought that was clear. You're welcome to the opinion about meeting LISTN, but your wish/request for such sources is not supported by or policy/guideline or validated by community consensus. This list would certainly satisfy the one aspect of WP:LISTPURP:Navigation you choose to highlight: if one were looking for information about the tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama one would find it. And yes, these buildings, like ALL buildings, have many characteristics, one of which is their height. NONE anywhere is notable for that sole fact. Djflem (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yet again, you are misconstruing the fact that some of these type articles have been kept at AFD as policy saying that they don't need to meet LISTN. That part of the guideline is literally prefaced with "There is no present consensus", so if my opinion is not supported or validated, yours isn't either. As PMC lists above, there is in fact some amount of precedence for deleting these-types of articles. the 'Navigation' part of LISTPURP mostly refers to existing articles, yet only four of these fourteen articles have wikilinks, meaning it isn't particularly useful for navigation, particularly given that their ranking in the heights is not defining in their notability. All four of those buildings are listed at National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Montgomery_County,_Alabama, which is their defining claim to notability. While this discussion has been quite constructive, I feel we're now going back and forth, largely restating the same points, and it's time to agree to disagree. I most likely won't be convinced by your points, and it's clear you won't be by mine. Maybe a 'merge' to Montgomery, Alabama could be a compromise? Anyways, I don't plan to comment here again, so best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- My argument is not flawed. There is no requirement to establish that the heights have been discussed as groups by many sources. Thought that was clear. You're welcome to the opinion about meeting LISTN, but your wish/request for such sources is not supported by or policy/guideline or validated by community consensus. This list would certainly satisfy the one aspect of WP:LISTPURP:Navigation you choose to highlight: if one were looking for information about the tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama one would find it. And yes, these buildings, like ALL buildings, have many characteristics, one of which is their height. NONE anywhere is notable for that sole fact. Djflem (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- So yes, I made an over-generalization. I just don't see the coverage of the topic to merit a list. You're absolutely correct that there isn't a present consensus for how to assess the notability of these lists and that they are sometimes kept at AFD, which means that your argument has just as many flaws as mine, except that I don't think LISTN is met and you continue to expound upon perceived flaws in my argument and substantiating the notability of individual buildings while not establishing that the heights have been discussed as groups by many sources. WP:LISTPURP is not met because that guideline focuses on "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." yet none of these buildings are notable for the sole fact that they are tall. Not a single one (as far as I can tell). Mine and Rhododentrite's arguments overlap heavily. I'd rather avoid restating the same thing over and over, so will stop here (for now). Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no requirement that these list have notability by group, so actually that is not a policy based argument either: Wikipedia:LISTN explicitly states: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.)" While editors are urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists, it is not a requirement, but simply "one accepted reason" why "List of Xs" are allowed. (not, please note, the specifically mentioned "Lists of X of Y", such as this). Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT (sorry you don't like the 5th building) and Wikipedia:JUSTNOTNOTABLE are not valid arguments either. (And by the way The 1907-10 Bell Building is architecturally significant as Alabama's finest example of a Sullivanesque skyscraper based on the 1890-1891 Wainwright Building and is locally significant as the finest of the remaining early steel-framed buildings in Montgomery. At the time of its construction, it was one of the two largest buildings in the state, the other building the First National Bank Building located a few blocks away..., now the 5th building on the list.) Djflem (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
What is misconstrued here is you your "what your saying" comment, so please be careful about that because you got it wrong. Just pointing out that the "by group source" request is invalid criteria, and THAT and that is supported by LISTN. Regarding your Wikipedia:OSE argument, there is as much precedence for alternatives to deletion, which is the preferred policy. All article of this type for US cities are constructed with a combination of 'blue-linked' and 'non-blue-linked" buildings (some of which are NRHP). That is the standard so that these lists are complete and accurate, which is crucial keeping the encyclopedia correct. All the buildings on this list fulfill the criteria of being among the tallest buildings in the Montgomery, Alabama and therefore have a place on it, satisfying Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA. Your imposition of an additional notability criteria for individual entries is misplaced, not applied to other lists of this type, and not at supported by any policy or guideline for lists. Djflem (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:LISTN. I don't think there is a standard for what would be considered "tall" but don't see how a building under 20 stories would be considered notably tall. // Timothy :: talk 04:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds a bit like Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, care to explain how it fails WP:LISTN? Djflem (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Other people have already done so; and at this point in a discussion, it's reasonable to assume that a !vote citing an earlier conclusion reached by several people finds those arguments more compelling. You're well into WP:BLUDGEON territory here. Please stop. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds a bit like Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, care to explain how it fails WP:LISTN? Djflem (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Have they? If you would like to summarize what you think that explanation & conclusion are, by all means please do so. That would be helpful (unlike your accusation). I would suggest that simply tagging a link to a policy by new contributor at his point in this long discussion, especially the one cited, without reasoning as how's it's being applied does nothing to advance it. It is reasonable to ask for an explanation. I don't find your assumption reasonable, and think it better to let people speak for themselves.Djflem (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. No coverage as a topic, therefore not notable. The buildings and their height are unremarkable, see WP:MILL. Random cross-categorization violating WP:NOTDIR. Sandstein 08:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Topic coverage does not determine notability for lists of this type.
- Remarkable is completely subjective Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT (Also, the essay Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, isn't really applicable - if essays were applicable if AFD discussions - and would be better applied to other cites like Hong Kong or Miami were tall buildings are run-of-the-mill, but to not Montgomery, where they are far less common.)
- WP:NOTDIR not applicable. NOT random. This is NOT a category, it is a list article. Djflem (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 20:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Tidza Guisers
- Tidza Guisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An amateur theatre company with no evidence of notability. The only brush with the media would be the matter of them performing in blackface, which doesn't appear to have been reported anywhere and would in any case constitute WP:1E. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MissiYasında&& (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. No substantial coverage; no notable performances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 20:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
St. Stephen Church (Trumbull, Connecticut)
- St. Stephen Church (Trumbull, Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NBUILD/WP:NORG. A few directory entries on Google Books but nothing that looks like WP:SIGCOV. I am skeptical that its being the oldest Catholic church in a mid-size town confers notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability for generic building. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete As above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Diocese of Bridgeport. It's a catholic parish church. There's no point deleting it outrighly. I recommend redirecting it to the catholic diocese where the church belongs for now. Most often, churches are not in the news as other usual topics. Hence, it's often hard for them to meet WP:GNG. Redirecting seems to me a better option. Parishoners and other guys interested in finding info about the church can get it through the specified diocese. My submissions anyway. Mariah200 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 20:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Achara Kirk
- Achara Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionable notability, the article has links to primary sources not independent of the subject. Not much reliable sources found online to meet WP:GNG Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete claims are absurd. She's not a cinematographer, she edits youtube videos. Vexations (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete was a dubious redirect to a film had a small role in, which was fine as per WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, but now since it's up for discussion, she hardly qualifies for notability.Onel5969 TT me 20:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Rahrumi here, Ok so 2 people have nominated for deletion without background checking. First "Claims are absurd that she is a cinematographer", she indeed is a cinematographer if you want I can give links to the works. Second "She hardly Qualifies for Notability" Please do look at her Instagram profile for no. of followers or just search her name on Google. Please do check Backgrounds and information outside The Godamn Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahrumi (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- There you go someone asked cinematography credit: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQZmgjUiYT4 Check in description for the credit. Notability: https://www.instagram.com/acharakirk/ Rahrumi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahrumi (talk • contribs)
- Delete Inflated claims, insufficient coverage to establish notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP what else do you want Sir/Madam? Whatever you ask for I'll bring it on.... Atleast Look at the links I've given.... Rahrumi (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2020(UTC)
- Please stop posting to the talk pages of every single person who !votes here. You might not like it but this person is not notably by our notability standard. Instagram followers do not matter here. IMDB is a user-generated source and cannot be used for determining notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP Sir/Madam.... You are telling me Instagram followers do not matter.... Let's leave the IMDb aside.... So what else do you want in order to prove the notability? Tell me that I'll bring you... If I can.... Its a discussion page and you have voted for deletion.... Its just like the Jury... I've to present my case also and if you need more evidence then tell me... WHAT DO YOU WANT? That's my primary question.... Rahrumi (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2020(UTC)
- Read the advice links at the top of this page, in the box "New to AfD?"ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP Sir/Madam.... You are telling me Instagram followers do not matter.... Let's leave the IMDb aside.... So what else do you want in order to prove the notability? Tell me that I'll bring you... If I can.... Its a discussion page and you have voted for deletion.... Its just like the Jury... I've to present my case also and if you need more evidence then tell me... WHAT DO YOU WANT? That's my primary question.... Rahrumi (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2020(UTC)
- Please stop posting to the talk pages of every single person who !votes here. You might not like it but this person is not notably by our notability standard. Instagram followers do not matter here. IMDB is a user-generated source and cannot be used for determining notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP what else do you want Sir/Madam? Whatever you ask for I'll bring it on.... Atleast Look at the links I've given.... Rahrumi (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2020(UTC)
- Delete: Barely found anything about her. Per WP:ARBITRARY, having hundred thousands of followers on IG doesn't make one notable. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. I see youtube links, IMDB database citations, and advertisements for films where she had a credited acting role. None of them support her even coming close to any of the three criteria for WP:NACTOR. Youtube hardly qualifies for meeting WP:FILMMAKER as these creators are not industry peers, their works are not reviewed by professional critics as those from studios, and their works, while entertaining, are not presented at film festivals or film industry awards. Ran as "Achara Kirk" +actress search and all I got were general celebrity sites with very basic IMDB information. Now I also did search "youtube bots" and got pages and pages of services and bots that promise to increase youtube views and subscribers. If she does achieve acting or legitimate filmmaking notability in the future an article can be re-created. Blue Riband► 00:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I tagged this as A7 early on, but the tag was apparently removed by the author. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails to qualify general notability criteria. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2020
- Delete. Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. GiuliaZB (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 18:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Maria Roszak
- Maria Roszak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although this has a little more substance than most of the supercentenarian articles removed over the last couple years, it's only a little. More than 27,000 people have been awarded "Righteous Among the Nations", and apart from that there are only a few small local media notes about her age. The article sure tries to puff it up as much as possible, but there's almost no actual substance; granted the language barrier might be an issue, but the Polish article actually has less sourcing. If I could think of a place to merge some of this I'd suggest that, but I'm not seeing anywhere. Also worth noting is the creator, who is now community banned, was topic banned from this area at the time he created this; he was an especially disruptive force in longevity articles for years. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG. The only reason this article was created in the first place was because she reached the age of 110. This has been shown repeatedly at Afd to be insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. First iteration of this article was speedy deleted and there is no apparent justification for it being recreated. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that living to a 100+ years is not enough, in itself, to be make a person notable. But it can generate sufficient coverage to make someone pass NBIO. And this person also got the Righteous award. And when you combine those two, it is no surprise to find that there is plenty of coverage out there. Yes, the news sources present in the article are, IMHO, niche Polish portals, but [35] is a biographical entry at the reliable portal about the Righteous maintained by large and internationally famous museum (the POLIN Museum) and here is a link to her corresponding bio in the Yad Vashem entry. And a simple google search helps to find a lot more coverage (was WP:BEFORE followed? Seems doubtful...): there was also more coverage of her death in bigger news outlets (one thing to note is that they sometimes user her name Cecylia, as in Cecylia Roszak): [36] (The Times), [37] (Times of Israel), [38] (USA Today) , [39] (The Independent), [40] (The Telegraph), [41] (Washington Post), and of course Polish ([42] - Wprost), [43] - Gazeta Wyborcza). That's a ton of reliable, first-class sources, and it is not just obituaries, as she had biographies in the Righteous databases long before her death (also there may be some archival news coverage of her receiving the award in 1984). She seems to have been written about in this Polish book [44] but I am not sure if the coverage is extensive (can't access most content) and if the publisher is reliable (through I think I tried looking into it a while ago and did not conclude it wasn't). IMHO it's a clear pass and, sorry to say, WP:TROUT for the nominator and the voter above who didn't bother with BEFORE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Righteous amongst the Nations. scope_creepTalk 11:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, as her heroic actions in WWII are covered by reliable sources as demonstrated by Piotrus.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 18:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Priya Anjali Rai
- Priya Anjali Rai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
3 afds, 2 deletes and a keep based on the worst version of the deprecated pornbio. Despite tge last one being a delete this was recreated but still fails ENT & GNG and as blp is far from adequately sourced. Can we salt it this time please? Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment for the record: Priya Rai was salted. That's how we got the current title. A G4 speedy was declined as the recreated page had new events since the 2012 deletion. Even with that, I don't see a material change in notability. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. This actress wasn't notable when the article was deleted for failing PORNBIO in 2012. The only relevant new fact since that deletion is PORNBIO getting taken down, giving Rai even less of a claim of notability. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable pronographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and salt - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 18:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per Spiderone - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was send to draft. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Trae Coyle
- Trae Coyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no professional appearances). Will likely become notable later in the year when the football season starts again, but WP:CRYSTAL applies and a draft already exists which pre-dates the mainspace creation. GiantSnowman 11:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Commment Hang on, you are nominating it for deletion, despite claiming they'll likely be notable in a few weeks?? I don't see anything in Drafts. A quick Google News search yields an astonishing 4530 hits. While I haven't had a chance to go through thousands of articles yet ... I'm not feeling the delete here. Nfitz (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- They might be notable in a few weeks, they might not be. We are not a crystal ball, we cannot keep on the assumption.
- The draft is literally linked in my nomination.
- Yep, lots of routine transfer news and lots from fan websites. Anything reliable and significant? No. GiantSnowman 11:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Lol, out of boredom/interest I've just Googled myself using the same method as above. I get nearly 8,000 results. Does that make notable? GiantSnowman 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I missed the draft link. But that's not draftspace ... I'm not sure I'd call something in Userspace a "draft". Why not put something like that in draft space to avoid duplication? And ... it seems odd to me, to be creating articles in userspace, but then AFDing an attempt to create the article elsewhere ... I don't see how this is constructive. But also ... hang on ... you have 4500 hits for your name, in quotes, in Google News (not Google, but Google News). Unless your name is John Smith or Steve Jones ... that seems odd ... my name isn't uncommon, but I only see 80 hits - and unlike Trae Coyle (which is surely an unusual name), they aren't me. But they all look like him. No, it doesn't make him notable ...but I haven't had a chance to look through them. Nfitz (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Lol, out of boredom/interest I've just Googled myself using the same method as above. I get nearly 8,000 results. Does that make notable? GiantSnowman 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Question GS, Can I ask why you don't histmerge the two together and move it into draft space. Govvy (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. There is coverage but not much. So far, the best seems to be this and this but, if that is deemed insufficient, then I'd suggest merging this into the draft so as not to lose the work done so far. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is routine transfer news, not significant - does not go towards GNG. GiantSnowman 19:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The article above that DanielRigal mentions is not routine transfer news. It's a a significant in-depth piece, that predates doesn't even mention the possibility of his transfer to Gillingham and meets GNG. And as far as routine transfers, there's been a huge amount of coverage of a supposedly routine transfer, worldwide - even in Viet Nam and India. Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ok so of the 5,000 or whatever pieces about him you found, only one is "significant"? WP:THREEREFS applies - where's the rest? There isn't any because he isn't currently notable. GiantSnowman 10:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify/userfy - player is highly likely to make his pro debut in three weeks' time. As a Gillingham supported I am happy to have it put into my user space and return it to mainspace as and when he plays -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: - there is already an older version in draft space - User:GiantSnowman/Trae Coyle. GiantSnowman 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- User page space, isn't draft space, precludes collaborative editing, and makes it impossible for other editors to be easily aware that a version exists. If this article is to be deleted, it should be moved to Draft:Trae Coyle. Nfitz (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Draft he will almost certainly make his debut next month. So I would say, move the article to draft space until that happens. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - just looking at pre-season reports for Gillingham F.C., and he's been part of the starting 11 per this. And they start the season with a fully-professional 2020–21 EFL Cup match against Southend United F.C. in less than 6 days. I'd suggest that we apply WP:NORUSH and relist this for another week, or else we may end up draftifying it, and then restoring it a couple of days later. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you think playing in pre-season friendlies is an indication of notability then I suggest you give your head a wobble. GiantSnowman 07:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- The lack of AGF and WP:CIVIL here from User:GiantSnowman is both stunning and shameful! Of course it doesn't indicate notability - I never said it did. It may however, indicate (along with the words I didn't quote) that they are intended to be part of the first team. While this doesn't justify creating an article, it more than justifies rushing into closure! Please stop this unnecessary sniping and apologize! Nfitz (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you think playing in pre-season friendlies is an indication of notability then I suggest you give your head a wobble. GiantSnowman 07:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Baron Farnham. Tone 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Simon Maxwell, 13th Baron Farnham
- Simon Maxwell, 13th Baron Farnham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG, post House of Lords Act 1999 peerages are not considered to confer notability per the AfD of the 13th Duke of Manchester Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This title has previously been noted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Or redirect to Baron Farnham. I do not see how WP:GNG is met. Or WP:NOTINHERITED is addressed. The claims to notability, in the article at least, seem to be that the subject was born into a specific family. And his sister-in-law is close to Queen Elizabeth II. That's it. And the refs provided do not even especially support even those claims. To my understanding, the holders of peerages are not exempted from the basic expectation of having done something notable. Or being the subject of coverage. And that merely having specific parents doesn't confer notability. Otherwise, in terms of WP:SIGCOV, I can find no news coverage. And, while the subject seems to be mentioned in 2 books, one is a passing mention (about the subject's niece marrying someone) and the other is a directory entry in Burke's peerage. (If the subject's title is notable, then that's fine, but I don't otherwise understand why we need an article on this particular holder of the title. Who doesn't appear to have any notability or coverage independent of that title....) Guliolopez (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete with the 1999 law such titles no longer default pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 17:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Randal Plunkett, 21st Baron of Dunsany
- Randal Plunkett, 21st Baron of Dunsany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG, post House of Lords Act 1999 peerages are not considered to confer notability per the AfD of the 13th Duke of Manchester Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Has WP:BEFORE been done, or an attempt been made to improve the article first, say with targeted tags? While a peerage alone does not automatically confer notability, this is the current holder of one of the 2-3 oldest titles surviving in Ireland (and the oldest occupied one-family home), who also has news coverage for his films, and his work on his estate - rewilding and nature reserve development. It seems enough to sustain an article. I'll try to chip in with some quick media searches. SeoR (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as above notable title, and other work. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Notable as a filmmaker. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 17:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Chat Pis
- Chat Pis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined PROD. This appears to be a non-notable sculpture. Most of what I can find about this are the same couple repackaged slow-news-day, feel-good type stories (the novelty being that the sculptor is an 11-year-old), but nothing that even remotely indicates sufficient notability for an article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Loksmythe (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Royals are given innumerable gifts by members of the public: there's nothing egregious about this one. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a one-time gift of a pissing sculpture by a non-notable artist does not an article make.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - as per OP - may be when it is installed and becomes famous? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete this is sourced to sculptorguide.com. Per https://sculptorguide.com/feature-your-art/ "We welcome submissions on Sculptor and Art related topics. We generally accept everything related to Sculptor and Art. As a rule of thumb, you should review our categories in the menu and ask yourself whether your article will fit within any of them. We will also accept art related content such as paitings[sic], designs and reviews, guides and so on."Today on their home page, under Featured Sculpture: "Darren McMullen and Renee Bargh are the new hosts of The Voice Australia." Vexations (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 17:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Changing Nature
- Changing Nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While this episode may have been notable for killing off the entire cast of the ‘90s puppet series Dinosaurs, there is nothing that indicates further notability. I think this article may be better suited for the Muppet Wikia on Fandom and that a redirect to the list of Dinosaurs episodes is best for this article. Pahiy (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The article currently has three good references: "Dinosaurs: The Making of TV’s Saddest, Strangest Sitcom Finale" (Vulture, 2018), "Dinosaurs: Changing Nature" (AV Club, 2011) and "Dinosaurs: The Most Traumatizing Series Finale Ever" (Buzzfeed, 2013). These were all published decades after the 1994 broadcast, indicating that there is sustained notability for this finale. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Toughpigs, but the plot description should probably be cut significantly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment All three sources in the article are plot summary, and all appear to be about one episode - (the finale) Lightburst (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, "Changing Nature" is the series finale for the show Dinosaurs. The Vulture article is clearly not plot summary, it's called "The Making of" the finale, and it discusses production decisions, scripting and reception. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - ToughPigs' links are sufficient to indicate notability, especially the Vulture piece. matt91486 (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 16:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Stick Sports
- Stick Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:NWEB but I'm not entirely sure since it's very difficult to specify a search for this without getting hits for "stick to sports" (which, incidentally, should probably have an article) which now has an article. Very low Alexa rank. Thinly sourced and tagged for notability for 11 years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Barely found anything about the site. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: with the caveat that like the nom it's tough to pull references to the site from stick sports the umbrella term, I tried doing a dive and found nothing that demonstrated the site's notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Birhan Vatansever
- Birhan Vatansever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Spiderone 20:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is general consensus that, while this subject has reasonable claims to notability, those claims are not necessarily reliable, and are not backed up by the better sources available. ~ mazca talk 20:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Pavel Agafonov
- Pavel Agafonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NOT AN ACE. No reliable list of aces include him. No meaningful/useful coverage in RS. Not even a Russian Wikipedia article. Very little known about him (year of death unknown). Soviet pilots often inflated tallies during Spanish civil war (claiming collective victories of regiment or squadron as their tally since individual victories not officially listed), accuracy of information in whole article is very questionable. Given that he was not listed anywhere in the respected complete encyclopedia of Soviet aces (Bykov, Mikhail (2014). Все асы Сталина. 1936 - 1953 гг. Moscow: Yauza. ISBN 978-5-9955-0712-3). (recent a book which tends to have lower tallies than pre-2010's publications which heavily inflated aerial victory claims) or the soviet-aces-1936-53.ru website (the reliable sources on the subject), he certainly was NOT an ace (plus the fact that even Mikhail Maslov credits him with only two shootdowns). Only sources claiming ace status are not trusted biographical encyclopedias and lists but merely highly unreliable sources that should not be used in Wikipedia. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Actually appears to pass WP:SOLDIER #1, as he received the Order of the Red Banner, which appears to have been the second-highest Soviet award for gallantry at the time, twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is a wide consensus that two Orders of the Red Banner (unlike other countries high awards) does not equal notable on Wikipedia due to how frequently it was awarded and the terms of the award (it was frequently awarded for birthdays and long service not just combat). Not even two Order of Lenin is a "slam dunk" for notability due to the same problems with the award system (only "litmus test" is really the Gold star, the highest, but even then, that one was awarded very frequently too and arguable some recipients of it fail GNG). Having two Order of Red Banner certainly does not override the GNG here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Although note that he appears to have been awarded both of his for combat service during the Spanish Civil War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Still doesn't change the fact that getting two Order of the Red Banner isn't a litmus test for notability since it was awarded so much to non-notable people who can't pass GNG. Also, the Order of Lenin, which is higher, could be awarded for galantry in combat, but he did not receive two (or even one) of them. And he's not an HSU either. If we at Wikipedia decided that two Order of the Red Banner alone were enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (which isn't), Wikipedia would overflow with biographies of little-known people whose only bibliography in the article is their award citations.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Although note that he appears to have been awarded both of his for combat service during the Spanish Civil War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is a wide consensus that two Orders of the Red Banner (unlike other countries high awards) does not equal notable on Wikipedia due to how frequently it was awarded and the terms of the award (it was frequently awarded for birthdays and long service not just combat). Not even two Order of Lenin is a "slam dunk" for notability due to the same problems with the award system (only "litmus test" is really the Gold star, the highest, but even then, that one was awarded very frequently too and arguable some recipients of it fail GNG). Having two Order of Red Banner certainly does not override the GNG here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
KeepBeing a fighter ace in the Spanish Civil war seems fairly notable to me. Has WP:SIGCOV Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)- @Hawkeye7: But he WASN'T an ace in the Spanish Civil War. He is not listed anywhere in Bykov's 2014 complete encyclopedia of Soviet aces (which includes Spanish Civil War), the most reliable source on the subject of Soviet pilot tallies. It is possible that he did not have a single personal aerial victory. Remember that in the Spanish Civil War, overclaiming was PROLIFIC, hence the 20th century sources contain heavily inflated and outright wrong tallies that have been repeatedly debunked by modern historians (since it was common for every pilot to say that the number of shootdown's their squadron had was their tally). With no fundamentally reliable sources on the person in question (all we know is that he certainly had less than 5 solo shootdowns required for inclusion in the encyclopedia), it is difficult to have an article about him with any accurate information. We should not spread misinformation about pilots and their claimed tallies on Wikipedia. Minor coverage in highly unreliable sources like airaces.ru and the book by Polak (that I personally have recived a barnstar for pointing out just a few of the many blatant errors in) doesn't cut it here. We need coverage of Agafonov in a RELIABLE (not over-dramatized/glorifying) source. And I can't find anything useful.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly a credible claim of notability. Overclaiming by fighter pilots was common, and airman were invariably permitted to keep awards for claims that later proved exaggerated. All I did was a WP:BEFORE and a plethora of references came up. My high school Russian lets me read them, but I lack the background to evaluate them. I am extremely sceptical of claims that sources are unreliable, as it has become something of a tactic lately, but in this case I am deferring to your knowledge of the subject and cancelling my !vote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for withdrawing your keep vote in light of the facts. I too think that Wikipedia has depreceated too many sources, but the fact remains that sources of tallies of pilots are highly contradictory, and one pilot can't have a different number of total shootdowns, so we have to rely on the more credible annotated lists (composed in the 2010's by modern historians like Bykov who consult loss records, official documents, award lists, and crash records, instead of just memiors and as a result generally have lower tallies) that are much more trustworthy. The airaces website (as opposed to the new and improved sovietaces version) is rather old an has not been updated to reflect the fact the modern historians have evaluated and re-calculated tallies (taking in to account aircraft loss reports by the other side) instead of the 20th-century-early 2000's "tallies" based heavily on hearsay. There is hardly a "plethora" of sources on Agafonov - google books doesn't yeild anything in Russian, and the only sources that aren't brief mentions of his name or scans of award documents (ie, primary sources and things that can't be used to establish notability) are airaces.narod.ru (a problematic one) a personal blog (also problematic), machine-translations of Wikipedia (problematic AF), and one-sentence machine-generated biographies on various websites literally just saying that he was a pilot (not defining of notability). I can't even find an obituary, gravestone photo, list of each shootdown he had (what dates? aircraft types?) or anything crucial for a biography of a pilot like this. And that's a problem because it relinquishes this article, if it were to remain, to forever being a stub/start class, with no way to ever truly expand upon it by adding information translated from other sources (given the severe shortage of basic information available). This guy is no more notable than most other Spanish civil war "aces" like Leonid Kalchenko. After all - it was an SOP to only officially document collective squadron victories (and then collectively award members of the squadron based on the collective victories, of which every pilot would individually indicate as their tally - the system resulted in highly inflated scores not caused by individual pilot overclaiming but rather attribution of victories to people who didn't have them) in the Spanish Civil war. That is why there is so much dispute over how many shootdowns Sergey Gritsevets had. Anyway, my point is, being in a squadron that tallied 8 victories may legitimately get you two orders of the red banner in the Soviet Union at the time, which wasn't by any means unusual, but it surely doesn't make you notable for Wikipedia per say, and there isn't anything we can do to improve this guy's article given the state of information avialable. If kept this article will be stuck with a better-sources-needed tag forever.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly a credible claim of notability. Overclaiming by fighter pilots was common, and airman were invariably permitted to keep awards for claims that later proved exaggerated. All I did was a WP:BEFORE and a plethora of references came up. My high school Russian lets me read them, but I lack the background to evaluate them. I am extremely sceptical of claims that sources are unreliable, as it has become something of a tactic lately, but in this case I am deferring to your knowledge of the subject and cancelling my !vote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: But he WASN'T an ace in the Spanish Civil War. He is not listed anywhere in Bykov's 2014 complete encyclopedia of Soviet aces (which includes Spanish Civil War), the most reliable source on the subject of Soviet pilot tallies. It is possible that he did not have a single personal aerial victory. Remember that in the Spanish Civil War, overclaiming was PROLIFIC, hence the 20th century sources contain heavily inflated and outright wrong tallies that have been repeatedly debunked by modern historians (since it was common for every pilot to say that the number of shootdown's their squadron had was their tally). With no fundamentally reliable sources on the person in question (all we know is that he certainly had less than 5 solo shootdowns required for inclusion in the encyclopedia), it is difficult to have an article about him with any accurate information. We should not spread misinformation about pilots and their claimed tallies on Wikipedia. Minor coverage in highly unreliable sources like airaces.ru and the book by Polak (that I personally have recived a barnstar for pointing out just a few of the many blatant errors in) doesn't cut it here. We need coverage of Agafonov in a RELIABLE (not over-dramatized/glorifying) source. And I can't find anything useful.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails SOLDIER, certainly, and no evidence of significant coverage that would meet the GNG. Ravenswing 03:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per PlanespotterA320, deferring to their knowledge wrt russian sourcing, doesn't clearly meet SOLDIER and definitely not GNG. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 16:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Credit Clear
- Credit Clear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Generic. scope_creepTalk 13:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Inclined to delete per nom and per WP:PROMO (I truly hate seeing articles about business "solutions") but I have a question. Per [45], it looks like it is about to be WP:LISTED on the Australian Securities Exchange in a matter of days—the roadshow is happening as we speak. What are people's thoughts about how to weigh WP:TOOSOON and WP:LISTED in this context? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Keep" Recent reports suggest that the company will soon be listed. While WP:Listed doesn't exactly mean automatic notability it most certainly means that an organization is inherently notable. Given the company is already in the process, I think it is kind of redundant deleting it right now and recreating it in a few month's time. Yaywoh (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Listing isn't a thing here. What is salient, is WP:NCORP and whether or the not the article references satisfy the specific aspects of that policy. Business listing, share announcements, director announcements, changes in share prices, funding news, money raised and so on, cant be used to verify notability. scope_creepTalk 09:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment All reference as far as I can see are press-releases in one form or another. I guess I'll go through the references. scope_creepTalk 11:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Review of References
- [46] Chairman taken on.
simple listings or compilations, such as:
of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH - [47]
standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as
{[tq|of a capital transaction, such as raised capital}} Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is a press-release. - Similar to 2.
- [[48]
of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. - Same reference as 4. An announcement. Fails
standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. - Raising 8.5 million.
of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. - Chairman announcement.
simple listings or compilations, such as:
of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH - Press-release
- Raised 9million.
of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
The rest of the references are the same. They fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. They are all press-releases. scope_creepTalk 08:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete No indications of notability. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
2013–14 Gateshead F.C. season
- 2013–14 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 14:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - as OP fails GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Spiderone 20:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Conference/National League seasons aren't notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 08:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
1990–91 Newport A.F.C. season
- 1990–91 Newport A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Owain (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS; see also recent AFD consensus. GiantSnowman 14:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - as OP fails GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - the argument for the liquidation season was a close call, but later seasons in the various tiers of non-League football are no different to every other team playing at lower levels. These seasons simply don't meet the requirements of WP:NSEASONS and have no obvious sign that they may have enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Spiderone 20:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 08:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
2010–11 Grimsby Town F.C. season
- 2010–11 Grimsby Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 14:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - as OP fails GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Spiderone 20:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 08:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus for Keep. Identification of Clio award, as Oscars for advertisers from Time magazine references indicates notability. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 06:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Todd Krasnow
- Todd Krasnow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Reference are WP:MILL and passing mentions. scope_creepTalk 12:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I would have said redirect to Staples Inc. but he's been on the board of a bunch of companies besides. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)- Keep I added the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Founder of Staples (world's first Superstore), named the Staples Center. There is enough RS and I will continue. Lightburst (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Addtionally: he also meets our criteria for WP:ANYBIO - He won a a gold "Clio" award for the best retail advertising in the United States. Time magazine described the event (in 1991) as (Clio Awards, the industry's high-profile, hotly pursued "Oscars.")[1] Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Advertising The Collapse Of Clio" Archived 2010-11-22 at the Wayback Machine Time magazine, July 1, 1991
- Keep Described as a "company icon" and "marketing star" [at Staples] in this book. Covered in this Harvard Business School book. Profiled as a case in this textbook 6th edition pg. 110+. A ton more book mentions in Google Books. Staples was an innovative and influential company one would expect the top founder-management team to be notable in the business world, appears the case. -- GreenC 01:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment He isn't the founder of Staples. It was founded by Leo Kahn and Thomas G. Stemberg. This spammy article would have you believe that. I'll have a look at the refs later. scope_creepTalk 09:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I think there is probably enough there to make him notable. The three books aren't about him (passing mention), but the clio award seems to be quality. scope_creepTalk 10:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Scope, I will do some more research on this fellow in a bit. Seems he has a foundation as well. Lightburst (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per sources already identified, that a prominent businessperson is covered in the media is hardly surprising, even media-shy ones are routinely covered. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Nomination Withdrawn since AleatoryPonderings has withdrawn his vote. I think there is enough for Keep scope_creepTalk 06:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 16:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Ivie Temitayo-Ibitoye
- Ivie Temitayo-Ibitoye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New page review: Highly promotional bio which has plenty of sources, all of which look like PR placements to me. I can’t see anything that clearly establishes notability so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable motivational speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep She has contributed at notable conferences nationwide, as followed; "SMW Lagos", "ELOY Conference[49]", etc, and was honoured by Lord's Gin. She has also been instrumental in the human resource field, an passes WP:ANYBIO for her recognitions "100 Most Inspiring Women in Nigeria", etc. Her notability wasn't inherited as the wife of Tee-Y Mix, but meeting the necessary criteria. The subject may seems "too soon" but it meet's notability guildline.--Dami070 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete — Barely escaping a G11, article is resumé looking and the subject doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:GNG. Possible WP:COI or WP:UPE could be observed also.Celestina007 11:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Bit of a chancer, for this paid article. scope_creepTalk 11:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 16:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Ryan Dean
- Ryan Dean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. Only source is WP:IMDBREF. DarkGlow (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete non notable. Inexpiable (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Doesn't meet the threshold for WP:ENTERTAINER and has negligible coverage. I think this is an easy one. EverybodyEdits (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It is way past time for Wikipedia to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 16:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Patrick Moody
- Patrick Moody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Inexpiable (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails both WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:CRIME. Routine coverage for an execution. // Timothy :: talk 16:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Muhajir people#Persecution. Withdrawing the AfD, with consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Confirming consensus as uninvolved editor. Zindor (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Persecution of Muhajirs
- Persecution of Muhajirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:POVFORK of Partition of India, and. This isn't even a neutrality issue since the lede of the article is completely bogus. Persecution of migrants in Pakistan and Bangladesh was done by native Muslims there, not the Hindus and Sikhs who themselves were persecuted minorities. There is nothing to salvage since most of the article is excerpts from other more neutral articles anyway. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 11:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- This page is not only about partition but also about the persecution of this ethnic group in Pakistan, And looking at other pages, this page seems necessary, see Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction and Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh and the Hindus and Sikh persecuted this group during the partition and Muslims have oppressed them in the era of Pakistan. If you think it is full of POV, you can unite it in another article, And I have also added that Hindus and Sikhs were also oppressed in Rajouri and Mirpur. MuhajirTiger (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @MuhajirTiger: Muhajir refers to migrants from partitioned India to areas of Pakistan and later Bangladesh. So, there was no such thing as Muhajir before the partition, your addition of those incidents seems to be a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That information belongs to Persecution of Muslims in India. The violence during the partition belong to the Partition of India article. The current version of this article is deeply flawed and meets the WP:TNT criteria. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @MuhajirTiger: okay I'm merging the usable stuff of the article to Muhajir people and removing the rest. Thanks for understanding. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @MuhajirTiger: Muhajir refers to migrants from partitioned India to areas of Pakistan and later Bangladesh. So, there was no such thing as Muhajir before the partition, your addition of those incidents seems to be a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That information belongs to Persecution of Muslims in India. The violence during the partition belong to the Partition of India article. The current version of this article is deeply flawed and meets the WP:TNT criteria. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, but yeah, there were no refugees here before the partition, but before the partition, some of the non-Muslims oppressed the Muslims Who wanted the new country, These people are now called Muhajir. MuhajirTiger (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @MuhajirTiger: thanks. Merger done. Sorry for the rushed AfD. The information about persecution before partition is available at Muhajir people article under the section Pakistan movement. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, but yeah, there were no refugees here before the partition, but before the partition, some of the non-Muslims oppressed the Muslims Who wanted the new country, These people are now called Muhajir. MuhajirTiger (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Jai Shiv Shankar
- Jai Shiv Shankar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The film was shelved (https://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-finally-dimple-kapadia-rajesh-khanna-come-together-1005747) and nothing notable about production. At least, sources haven't been used to prove the production as notable per WP:NFF. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:NFF, "Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." // Timothy :: talk 16:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as an unreleased film that doesn't pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 16:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Wes Farnsworth
- Wes Farnsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, has never played in a professional game. Of the sources in the article, Fansided isn't really reliable (basically a collection of team sports blogs), and the other two sources are just routine signing statements. [50] is not significant coverage. Gets a total of two sentences of coverage at [51] [52] is very brief. [https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/07/20/denver-broncos-special-teams-brandon-mcmanus-2020-training-camp-preview/ is only two sentences. I'm not finding much coverage of his college career, either. Long snappers don't get much coverage, and Farnsworth doesn't seem to be an exception. Hog Farm Bacon 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Logs:
2020-08 ✍️ create
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 11:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a lack of truly substantive coverage at a level that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete based on the article as it is written, it looks like there is no substantial coverage to pass WP:GNG nor any other notability measure I can find. There's a lot of "noise" among the search engines for fan blogs, transaction records, etc... but those are typically ignored for the purposes of establishing notability. This means the article itself is really all I can go on, and it is lacking. If an enthusiastic editor wishes to userfy or incubate, I would have no objection but also have low expectations.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Thanks to Oleryhlolsson for finding the sources, this is what was needed. Tone 23:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Prince Sigismund of Prussia (1896–1978)
- Prince Sigismund of Prussia (1896–1978) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families. // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - A German/European prince resetteling in Costa Rica, that is pretty unusual. Wikipedia would be a little more dull and less broad in perspective if there isn't room for an article like this. :-) Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete non notable--Devokewater@ 13:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)- keep There seem to be a series of AfD nominations here just saying "JUSTNOTNOTABLE" about sourced article on various aristocrats. Some of them will slip through and get deleted because no-one has time to oppose all of them. But it shouldn't be done like this surely? Denzil1963 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Unlike many of the recent nominations, this person was born in Imperial Germany and was a member of a royal family in a country that recognised such titles for more than 20 years. Moving to Guatemala and then Costa Rica and dealing with honey is comparatively interesting, but should be sourced better. From the Spanish Wikipedia, I found this article in La Nación, written on the occasion of his son's death, which also claims he was a supporter of Anna Anderson's claim to be Anastasia Romanova. So there's probably something to write about, not just genealogy. —Kusma (t·c) 22:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. agreed that this is a reasonable exception DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:ODD, WP:SIGCOV, my standards, Oleryhlolsson, Kusma, and DGG. Weirder than the average deposed royalty, this prince had an actual career after emigrating to Costa Rica. The short article is already more than a genealogical entry. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Honest Question: Oleryhlolsson, Devokewater, Kusma, DGG, Bearian, What is notable about this person? What makes him "worthy of note", something that he would be known for if he wasn't part of this family. The policy suppliment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Monarchs and nobility says "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone."
- There is an article about his death mentioned above is interesting, but its main point is that he lived an obscure, ordinary life.
- Where he moved and lived is a curiousity and unusual, but not a cause of notability.
- Being a businessman is not a cause for notability.
- He seems to have been a good, ordinary person, that just happened to be part of a formerly royal family. I see one article that meets "Significant coverage" addressing the topic directly and in detail, and that again just points out he was an good, ordinary, obscure, person with an interesting family background.
- I'm not going to bludgeon this, just wanted to make one final appeal before this is closed. // Timothy :: talk 11:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- TimothyBlue, I agree that the case for notability that has been made so far isn't strong. The lack of good sources is rather concerning (so far there seems to be quite a lot more about his son than about him), as one would expect a "royal" who does something slightly unexpected to be documented better in reliable sources. I wouldn't be too sad to see this deleted, but I also wouldn't be too surprised if somebody eventually digs up some WP:RS that turn this into a viable article. (I am assuming some notability instead of being able to prove it). —Kusma (t·c) 20:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: As opposed to several nominations that were purely genealogies, this one has some potential to be kept, but I'd like to see some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep One of the few royals of Prussia who lived throughout WW1 and WW2 and he resettled in Costa Rica. Surely makes him different than other ones. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Reply to Aman Kumar Goel, Lots of members of royal families lived through WWI/2, and moving is something lots of people do. How does being different make them notable? Do you have any guideline that supports this?. // Timothy :: talk 14:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. This article seems to omit most of the subject's life. "In 1927, Prince Sigismund and his family resettled in Costa Rica. He planned to engage in banana and coffee planting on land he owned there. They were accompanied by only a governess, as the children were still young. Sigismund died in Puntarenas on 14 November 1978." So we hear what he planned to do when he was 30, but we don't know whether he actually did go into the banana and coffee planting business. And two sentences but 50 years later, he dies. If there are sources that discuss his life from age 30 to age 80, they need to be incorporated into the article. And if there are not, that's not a good sign for the subject's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Other things that I have been able to find are like this [53], sources that don't meet WP:RS, and don't appear to know much more about him. He appears to have lived a ordinary life. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Monarchs and nobility (a policy supplement) states "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone.". // Timothy :: talk 18:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment "the banana and coffee planting business" - actually I now tend to believe, that the article in it's present form is somewhat misleading as to what kind of crops this Sigismund dealt with. Sigismund was an environmentalist long before this became "modern" and "fashionable", and he would most certainly not consider large scale banana planting as something usefull for the environment. He and his wife was widely known for their bees and honey. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, I agree, he seems to be a notable, compared to the recent deletions Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, it literally does not matter if he did absolutely nothing of even moderate importance in his life. He could have done nothing even remotely interesting, but that does not matter for notability purposes. What does matter is whether he passes WP:GNG, and that he does with the sources already in the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, if he did absolutely nothing of importance, he could easily be included in some family tree article. For the purpose of encyclopedia, that is enough. --Tone 07:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Actually there is a paper by a lecturer (PhD Natural Sciences for Development) from Veritas University in Costa Rica that tells the "whole" story of Prince Sigismund and his wife. I have to read this entire paper before I can make relevant improvments to the article. But for short he was (they were) not merely a "princely farmer" in Costa Rica. They were agricultural entrepreneurs and environmental researchers (the First Center for Agricultural Research and Biological Conservation at the private level in rural Costa Rica), established a Natural Sanctuary, focused on sustainability in their choise and development of technologies, they founded one of the first meteorological observation laboratories in the country, they educated and inspired the locals in the use of various agricultural and enviromental techniques (implemented innovative agricultural methods and processes), their choise of crops should be seen as a way of preventing monocultural agriculture. Among other contributions to the local region, he was also a road builder favoring development of the region. Apart from all this the prince is also mentioned in a number of books, but it's not at this point evident to me how much relevant biographical information, that can be extracted from these works. It would be books like:
- Harald Eschenburg: Prinz Heinrich von Preußen. Der Großadmiral im Schatten des Kaisers. Heide 1989, ISBN 3-8042-0456-2.
- Jürgen Plöger: Die Anfangsjahre der Kieler Hebbelschule. Ein Blick in die Kaiserzeit. Ludwig, Kiel 2002, ISBN 3-933598-42-7, S. 76 ff.
- Karin Feuerstein-Praßer: Die deutschen Kaiserinnen. Piper, München 2006.
- Ernst Dietrich Baron v. Mirbach: Prinz Heinrich von Preußen. Eine Biographie des Kaiserbruders. Böhlau Verlag, Köln/Weimar/Wien 2013. ISBN 978-3-412-21081-6, S. 549–558
- Marie Stravlo: Mi amigo el Príncipe, biografía de Alfredo de Prusia. REA EDITORIAL, 2014. ISBN 978-9930-9520-0-9. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, if he did absolutely nothing of importance, he could easily be included in some family tree article. For the purpose of encyclopedia, that is enough. --Tone 07:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 16:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Emberson Group
- Emberson Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. --Pontificalibus 07:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 08:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 08:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 16:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Digital twin
- Digital twin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A neologism that is covered by the existing computer simulation article. If the Azure Digital Twin is notable in its own right, it would be best to start an article for it with a clean sheet. 1292simon (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep what a horrific pile of buzzword-driven bullshit. That said, it's buzzword-driven bullshit that seems to be talked about a lot, and is different from computer simulation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per power~enwiki. Gets 14,300+ hits on Google Scholar. Could probably be stubbified or start-ified if kept—the lengthy catalog of examples doesn't seem super helpful, and the lede needs to be much more concise. If this is kept, I'd happily be pinged to help out with an overhaul. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Currently Digital Twin is a very distinct concept to mean complete virtualization of a physical asset. There is no analog to the exact concept of a Digital Twin in 2020, and it's used in many industries to mean exactly as it is explained in the Digital Twin wiki page. For example, The Smart Water Network Forum (SWAN) defines Digital Twin for the water industry by diagram, video training, and blog at at https://www.swan-forum.com/digital-twin-h2o-work-group/, so its not just an Azure concept as the user cites above. Please remove the delete request label from the top of the article as it distracted me, and would confuse a user not already familiar with the concept as to why on earth anyone would want to delete such a key concept today. 14:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtforme (talk • contribs) — Dtforme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep As above google brings up substantial hits. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Fair enough. Could someone please take this article under their wing and fix it up? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep In the Web of Science, I found 1,464 citations for this concept. Paul H. (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 16:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Rue Delesseux, Paris
- Rue Delesseux, Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nom for a previously prodded article on a minor street in Paris that fails WP:GEOROAD. This is no Champs-Élysées: it is one block long. The article in French is barely any longer and cites no sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy delete No assertion of notability either here or fr.wiki. Reywas92Talk 01:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet WP:GEOROAD: "notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject." BEFORE and French Wikipedia revealed no additional sources. // Timothy :: talk 13:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 16:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Carmelo Patti
- Carmelo Patti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG as he is virtually exclusively known for being linked to Messina Denaro during the one event when his assets were seized. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite. That 1.5 bn euro asset seizure didn't come ex nihilo. Carmelo Patti was a rags-to-riches billionaire and reputed mafia boss, who died one of the richest men in Italy.[54][55] Authorities couldn't prove his wealth was ill-gotten during his lifetime.[56] He was already under investigation when he died in 2016. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Gene93k. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 16:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
CarProperty.com
- CarProperty.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable niche real estate website. I would have prodded it but (1) it was kept at a 2015 AfD; and (2) it has some mentions in the New York Times [57] and Chicago Tribune [58]. I think it's a pretty clear WP:CORPDEPTH fail, and I think this deserves fresh consideration. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources presented in the previous AfD are reliable and talk about the site: Chicago Tribune, NY Times, Inman, Road & Track, The Car Connection and Huffington. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Easily clears new WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 16:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Sin Factor
- Sin Factor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could not find coverage of the album in reliable sources. There is assertion of notability of being the first release by GPC Productions, but neither the label or the bands featured on the album have articles, so the significance is not validated. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Barely found anything about the album. Neither of the artists indicated there have their own article. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Important releases in their underground community and it is sourced.Soul Crusher (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete- Album lacks significant coverage which questions its notability. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. Consensus for deletion is clear. BD2412 T 02:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Infection (Band) and other albums created by the band
- Infection (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Beheaded Children Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Acrotomophile Mutilator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reason: Fails WP:NALBUM, and a non notable band. 100.37.166.70 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator note Added more articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.166.70 (talk • contribs) 01:56, August 23, 2020 (UTC)
Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support Not notable in the slightest. Could probably even go for a speedy delete? ItsPugle (please use
{{reply|ItsPugle}}
on reply) 00:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)- Article does not meet A9 in a sense that the creator also made an article for the band. Suppose you nominate that too? On a secon note, I tagged the article as CSD A7. 100.37.166.70 (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator note All albums and the band Infection (Band) nominated for deletion. @Tyw7: Can you move this under Infection (Band)? Thanks, 100.37.166.70 (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Erm you nominated Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#AFD_Request_2 but I can add a tag to the band as a multi-article AFD --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Edit: I see you already did that --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Erm you nominated Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#AFD_Request_2 but I can add a tag to the band as a multi-article AFD --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - This process sure is a mess. For future reference, it is not even required to tie related AfDs together when you could just reference the others in a "see also" comment at the top of each one. Linking AfDs together is supposed to result in convenience, not this clustercluck in which the interested voter has to figure out if the band is being discussed, or one of their albums, or several of their albums, etc. And why in the world has this discussion been del-sorted to the Sexuality page? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Doomsdayer520, I sorted to the sexuality sorting because Beheaded Children Contest, the initial article nominated had a rather suggestive song titles. When I nominated on behalf of IP, he just listed one article Beheaded Children Contest. Then when I was offline, he edited my nomination and tagged on the other articles, making it the mess you see right now.--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Consider the following. The Bands/Musicians del-sort page is perused by editors like those here, who know how to assess whether a band is notable. The Sexuality del-sort page deals with articles on human sexuality and the editors there know whether a topic in that realm is notable. You have wasted their time listing an article about a band with one jokey song title that is distantly related to sex. Just like time would be wasted at the Bands/Musicians page if an article about an obscure fungus was listed just because its name looks a little like a musical term. Unnecessary del-sorting is just another addition to this mess. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all: Infection (Band), Acrotomophile Mutilator (album), and Beheaded Children Contest (album). I have no doubt that this band has fans in their local scene, but their article severely exaggerates the coverage they have received. Their "coverage" in magazines like Metal Hammer and Decibel consists of brief mentions in articles that are about other bands or events. The footnote to Revolver is a story in which their gross-out album cover was noted but the writer did not know who the band was due to their incomprehensible logo. Other media mentions are brief listings of compilation albums in which they appeared. Their AllMusic and Metal Archives entries are blank with no history or critical coverage. The only remotely informative media source I could find is a new album announcement here: [59], and they have no coverage of any significant or reliable nature. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - per Doomsdayer520 The band was included in the Metal Hammer CD "Riffs Around the World: Planet Metal"[1]. That's an achievement, not just a "brief mention." In the same line, Decibel Magazine reviewed their 12" LP [2], it wasn't a casual mention, journalist Shane Mehling actually wrote about the album. Ukraine's metal magazine Atmosfear also reviewed the band's second album [3]. Finally, they were also included in the Zero Tolerance cover-mount CD [4]. No other Peruvian metal band has received that kind of international press until this day. Unfortunately those are printed magazines, and they update their websites constantly, so it is difficult to find old articles, hence the need of page scans. Best killthepixelnow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all per Doomsdayer520's incisive comments. It looks like page creator had a near-identically titled page speedily deleted 11 years ago. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all per Doomsdayer and Dom Kaos. No evidence of notability. A blank Allmusic page is always a bad sign. Metal Archives wouldn't be reliable even if there would be a biography. Couldn't find anything besides their official sites, facebook, Metal Archives, and (reprinted press releases) about their albums. The article is also "sourced" to unreliable sites only. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all per Doomsdayer. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete half the references are to the bands own website, the others not particularly notable. One of the articles merely notes one of their album covers being tasteless! Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - per GhostDestroyer100. The article is about a band that has 14 year of history. They played in international venues, opening for acts such as Suffocation [5], Malevolent Creation [6], Vomitory [7], Venom Inc. [8], and Disgrace and Terror [9]. Best killthepixelnow (talk)
- Comment - per Doomsdayer520 The band has received local and international coverage in Necromance Magazine (Spain) [10][11], Friedhof Magazine (Spain) [12], Metal Temple (Greece) [13], Pest Webzine (Romania) [14], El Comercio (Peru) [15], Dargedik (Peru) [16], among many other printed and digital platforms. Best killthepixelnow (talk)
- Comment To give this AfD a fair hearing, it is probably worthwhile for someone who can read these languages to make an objective evaluation of these sources. I only read English, but just out of curiosity in clicking the links within the first of those mentioned (Necromance Magazine) it doesn't seem to have a particularly large following based on the number of people who engage with it on it's various social media sites. Take that for what it's worth. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment per ShelbyMarion Death metal bands remain, usually, in the underground metal scene. Still, this band has received world-wide coverage from magazines, zines, and blogs all around the word. This is a small list:
- MetalBite (USA) [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killthepixelnow (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Masterful Magazine (Poland) [18]
- Spirit of Metal (France) [19]
- Metal.de (Germany) [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killthepixelnow (talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Pest Webzine (Poland) [21]
- Twilight Magazine (Germany) [22]
- Panzerfaust Zine (Poland) [23]
- From Beyond Metal Fanzine (Venezuela) [24]
- Stormbringer (Austria) [25]
- Metal Glory (Germany) [26]
- Metal Underground (Austria) [27]
- Metal Invader (Greece) [28]
- Eternal Terror (Norway) [29]
- Brutalism (Germany) [30]
- Zigi's Metal Corner (Germany) [31]
- Best killthepixelnow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.infectionmetal.com/downloads/electronic-press-kit/06_Press_coverage/metal_hammer-2010_04-planet_metal.jpg
- ^ https://www.infectionmetal.com/downloads/electronic-press-kit/06_Press_coverage/decibel-2016_03-needle_exchange.jpg
- ^ https://www.infectionmetal.com/downloads/electronic-press-kit/06_Press_coverage/atmosfear-issue_016-121_123.pdf
- ^ https://www.infectionmetal.com/downloads/electronic-press-kit/06_Press_coverage/zero_tolerance-2015-issue_067.jpg
- ^ https://www.dargedik.com/2017/08/suffocation-en-lima-2017-bandas-teloneras.html
- ^ https://elcomercio.pe/blog/headbangers/2020/01/malevolent-creation-en-lima-luego-de-mas-de-una-decada-el-reencuentro-con-el-death-metal-sin-adjetivos/
- ^ https://www.facebook.com/MassHypnosisPeru/photos/a.971239549634416/2398427820248908/?type=3&theater
- ^ https://garajedelrock.com/conciertos-peru/venom-inc-confirma-concierto-en-lima-en-febrero-2019/
- ^ http://metalhousezine.blogspot.com/2019/09/disgrace-and-terror-en-lima.html
- ^ https://necromance.eu/infection-per-beheaded-children-contest/
- ^ http://necromance.eu/infection-per/
- ^ https://friedhof-magazine.com/criticas/infection-acrotomophile-mutilator
- ^ http://www.metal-temple.com/site/news/view/general_news/infection-announce-new.htm?fbclid=IwAR1FN_aoMoEwWtrLIo506WFqYte-5t34PCUTS8-PbdPxhx8ep1u-M4DaJms
- ^ http://pestwebzine.com/index/infection/0-121
- ^ https://elcomercio.pe/blog/headbangers/2014/06/resena-de-infection-acrotomophile-mutilator-autoeditado-2014/
- ^ https://www.dargedik.com/2020/07/infection-beheaded-children-contest-ep.html
- ^ https://metalbite.com/album/39974/infection-beheaded-children-contest?fbclid=IwAR2YLJ4apxO5OJ-jLAZgcZXSoaKhmVhobj3jEaC6OJJInh0V9s83nHINOPY
- ^ http://www.masterful-magazine.com/reviewResult.php?display=detail&id=2624
- ^ https://www.spirit-of-metal.com/en/album/Necrokindergarden/155795
- ^ https://www.metal.de/reviews/infection-acrotomophile-mutilator-62818/
- ^ http://pestwebzine.com/index/august_2014/0-910
- ^ https://www.twilight-magazin.de/reviews/cds/item/infection-acrotomophile-mutilator.html
- ^ http://panzerfaust666zine.blogspot.com/2015/07/infection-acrotomophile-mutilator.html
- ^ https://beyondmetal.blogspot.com/2015/08/review-infection-acromotophile-mutilator.html
- ^ http://www.stormbringer.at/reviews/12229/infection-acrotomophile-mutilator.html
- ^ https://www.metalglory.de/reviews.php?nr=26716
- ^ https://www.metalunderground.at/cd-berichte/infection-acrotomophile-mutilator
- ^ https://metalinvader.net/infection-acrotomophile-mutilator/
- ^ https://www.eternal-terror.com/reviews/index.php?id=5259&type=B
- ^ https://brutalism.com/review/infection-acrotomophile-mutilator/
- ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PATUJ7EPKUA
- Comment - per Deathlibrarian There are external sources, but I guess it is also advisable to source the band's website. Those links you mention can be easily removed without affecting the final result. Best killthepixelnow (talk)
- Comment I don't know. Most of these sites look like blogs to me. I know some of them (Metal.de, Spirit of Metal, Stormbringer, Metal Underground, Masterful Magazine) but I think only Metal.de is reliable from all of these. So we have one reliable source (Metal.de) but one source is not enough. It seems like they are pretty popular, having toured with all of those big names (I have never heard about "Disgrace and Terror" though) and it seems like this band is popular in the underground (although I have never heard of them despite liking several underground metal bands myself - but that's not the point, sorry), and they have gotten some coverage from ezines and blogs but I am still not convinced of their notability. Btw, death metal is not limited to the underground for a long time now - there are lots of death metal bands that broke into the mainstream and have coverage in reliable sources. With all respect to this band, unfortunately, they are among the truly underground ones that only very few people know and thus are not notable for WP inclusion because they haven't been covered by reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - per GhostDestroyer100 - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I concur that Metal.de, Spirit of Metal, and Masterful Magzine are well-reputed and independent publications. I got a question: Why is that Metal Hammer, Decibel (magazine) and El Comercio (Peru) [1] are not being taken into consideration to ponder the relevance of the article. Those also count as reliable, independent, and published sources.
- Another comment - Killthepixelnow seems to be directing comments toward me as the first detailed voter, so I checked out the new sources. Killthepixelnow is arguing that the band has received "coverage" but has missed the fact that this term has a distinct meaning in Wikipedia. "Coverage" must be in reliable sources that are independent of the band and its own promotional efforts, and even if they appear in such sources, the "coverage" must discuss the band in a significant fashion. From the new list supplied by Killthepixelnow, we can see that the band has been listed in album directories, mentioned in social media, discussed by bloggers, uploaded to YouTube, etc. etc. Very little of that is reliable, independent, or significant coverage under Wikipedia's definitions. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource in which people/things have to qualify for inclusion. And calling for sympathy because they are tragically "underground" won't help either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - per Doomsdayer520 My point is, the links and sources listed are reliable, in so far as they are not connected to the band. Perhaps, the right term is not "coverage," as you already said. The term underground was mentioned to stress the fact some publication (magazines, fanzines, blogs, websites) and bands might be obscure to some people, but they exist nevertheless. and count as reliable sources. Let us take Cuero Negro Magazine as an example. It is the oldest metal fanzine in Peru, and it goes back to 1988 [2]. The aforementioned publication included the band in their XVI edition [3][4]. That is a reliable source, yet very underground. Best killthepixelnow (talk)
References
- ^ https://elcomercio.pe/blog/headbangers/2014/06/resena-de-infection-acrotomophile-mutilator-autoeditado-2014/
- ^ https://fanzinesdelmundo.blogspot.com/2020/04/cuero-negro-1-peru-1988.html
- ^ https://www.facebook.com/infectionmetal/photos/a.267518713281160/3330557533643914/?type=3&theater
- ^ https://www.facebook.com/infectionmetal/photos/a.267518713281160/3330557533643914/?type=3&theater
- Comment - @Killthepixelnow: Yes, Metal Hammer and Decibel Mag are reliable sources. But the thing is, they just mention the band among other things which is not coverage in the slightest (although Doomsdayer also mentioned this). The El Comercio album review looks great but the url says "blog" and there are loads of links to the social media/streaming entries of the band which is not a good sign as probably the one who wrote the article was paid money to write the article so the band can get advertised. If it's not true, I am sorry if I am accusing someone. But blogs are not considered as reliable sources on WP, that's a golden rule here. Like I said I actually think Metal.de is a RS (reliable source), I am still not convinced by Spirit of Metal (I have used them a lot and they have that "database feeling" and the information (e.g. the year the band was formed) is often confusing. Real magazines like Metal Hammer and the like wouldn't allow this. The rest of the sources you presented all look like WordPress sites to me, even Masterful Magazine (which like I said, I know) so that's not a good sign either because blogs are not RS. So to summarize, I am still not convinced. Update: It's all clear now. "Killthepixelnow" is obviously affiliated with the band. Their "Beheaded Children Contest" album was mixed at a studio called "Kill the Pixel Now". The user is probably the producer or someone else, but he is certainly affiliated with this group. That's why he fights so hard to keep the article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - @GhostDestroyer100: I am glad you take the time to explain those things. In regard to the official website of El Comercio, they allocate many different contents in their digital version. "Headbangers" is a music section devoted to the metal scene in general with particular interesst in local productions. It belongs to the digital version of the site, but they labelled it as blog when the "blog hype" mushroomed. As you might now, it is customary to include extra digital content (links to the band's website and videos if they have) in music reviews, so I do not see that as odd (Pitchfork and Rolling Stone do that, for instance.) Apart from that, I note there is a disdain in general for blogs, as not being reliable sources. I beg to differ, for the platform does not invalidate the contents that appear on them. Developing a "real" website costs a lot of money, that I know for sure because I am on that industry. So magazines that don't have a big budget rely on technologies such as Wordpress and Wix to develop their projects, because it is economically more viable. You might be surprised to hear that Harvard University website is actually based on Wordpresss technology. Of course, it doesn't look like the typicall Wordpress template, but it's a WP template, just highly customised to hide its nature. So, if someone cite a resource found in Harvard's website, would it be accepted or not? The bottom line is content should be relevant, in spite of the technology in which is based. Lots of "academics" (quotation marks required) despised Wikipedia when it began because it was "just a website." And here we are now, still discussing.
- Comment @Killthepixelnow: Interesting thoughts. I did not know that the website of Harvard University is based on WordPress technology too. That surprised me for sure. As for the rest of it, you speak the truth and it was fun to read it. As for the band, I am not certain the article will stay but others will tell. I don't have anything else to comment. Oh yeah, I got one: These are all the reliable and unreliable sources that should/shouldn't be used when writing a WP article on a band/album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @GhostDestroyer100: Thanks for the information, that's a rather useful resource!
- Keep all: They have received some coverage. As for the links indicated by killthepixelnow, the Facebook, YouTube and Blogspot links have to go. And so does their website, which is a primary source. The rest of the links seem to be reliable.
- I also found some reliable sources which talk about the albums.
- Acrotomophile Mutilator: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66] and [67].
- Beheaded Children Contest: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] and [73].
- With these, the articles of the Band and both Albums are good enough to pass WP:NBAND and WP:NALBUM respectively. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @Superastig: Good advice, thanks. All primary sources were removed from the articles, to make them more objective.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killthepixelnow (talk • contribs) 20:42, August 29, 2020 (UTC)
- Delete A lot of these references are in-world blogs and fail WP:NOT, being self-published and not under editorial control. There is no coverage whatsoever. There is no real depth. Nobody is listening to them on Spotify, SoundCloud, Apple Music, Youtube or Deezer. They are ultraobscure. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 18:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- It is a failure to launch scenario. scope_creepTalk 18:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep allComment: @Superastig:@Scope creep: Once again, I do not see why the disdain against some type of publications. Perhaps from your standpoint the article deals with a obscure band, but it has been proven with the references above their albums were reviewed by sources such as Decibel Magazine [1], El Comercio (Peru) [2], metal.de [3], and Necromance Magazine [4] [5] (among others.) Sure, they are not popular as Cannibal Corpse, but it is not as if the band is not relevant, at last for a certain niche. As for the digital presence, last time I checked their albums had around 40,000 streams in the past two months, and the reproduction count for one of their songs is above 664,800. That is only in Spotify [6], so I do not see real data to support the argument "Nobody is listening to them." I think enough evidence has been presented so as to pass WP:NBAND and WP:NALBUM. Regards Killthepixelnow (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC) killthepixelnow (talk)
- Note: User already voted "keep all" above. Striking through second vote. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is a failure to launch scenario. scope_creepTalk 18:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Mehling, Shane (March 2016). "Infection. Acrotomophile Mutilator [Self-released]". Decibel. Philadelphia: Red Flag Media. p. 88.
And also I'm not real big on death metal this clean and polished, but the playing is super tight and the riffs are brutally melodic; a certain Charles Schuldiner would be pretty into this whole oldschool package.
- ^ Monterroso, César (2 June 2014). "Reseña de Infection - Acrotomophile Mutilator - Autoeditado - 2014" [Review of Infection - Acrotomophile Mutilator - Self-released - 2014]. El Comercio (Peru) (in Spanish). Lima. Retrieved 22 August 2020.
Infection's new album , Acrotomophile Mutilator, is a new milestone in this long extreme tradition and also maintains a style and sound at a demanding level.
- ^ Becker, Saskia (29 October 2015). "Infection - Acrotomophile Mutilator". Metal.de (in German). Retrieved 31 August 2020.
With "Acrotomophile Mutilator", Infection show how pure hatred can be set to music in just 30 minutes. The Peruvian death duo stick to their second album mercilessly from the first to the last minute, staying close, but not too close, to models like Death and Cannibal Corpse.
- ^ Martos, Juan Ángel (30 August 2020). "Infection". Necromance Magazine (in Spanish). Tenerife: Necromance Magazine. p. 22–23. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
- ^ Martos, Juan Ángel (30 August 2020). "Infection (PER) Beheaded Children Contest". Necromance Magazine (in Spanish). Tenerife: Necromance Magazine. p. 37. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
- ^ Infection plays at Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/3Zw1Tr0wkYPoKsYjFLOFYb?si=JE382NmFRQ-nn7ikSTcfEw
- 220 listeners a month on Spotify that you have just confirmed. Nobody is listening to them!! Facebook is not a valid reference. Its non-RS. A lot of these references are very low-quality. For a band to be on Wikipedia, it must have extensive coverage and it must be something that people are actually listening to. I don't see any evidence and do I lot of these bands. scope_creepTalk 07:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: @Scope creep: The goal here is to determine, with valid criteria, if the article is relevant. You have not supported evidence to counter the sources herein presented.
- In regard to WP:SIGCOV:
- "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- El Comercio is the major newspaper in Peru. The oldest as well. Their second album was reviewed in their digital version [1]
- "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
- Some of the publications that were listed are notable, such as a review in Decibel Magazine [2]. I mean, not every metal band in the world have received a critique of their album in there. Being able to take part of a compilation album in Metal Metal Hammer Magazine [3] means they made the cut, and were included by their music value.
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
- All interviews and album reviews are independent. In the original article, all sources to the band's website and social media were removed. And all the rest were done by independent publishers. Necromance Magazine is a Spanish magazine that covered two albums of the band and did an interview them that past month. The name of the band is even in the cover [4].
- "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.
- A band with fourteen years of trajectory, that has toured with bands such as Suffocation, Malevolent Creation, Venom Inc., Pestilence, and Vomitory, not to mention a whole lot of local concerts is relevant.
- ----
- In regard to WP:BAND:
- ==Criteria for musicians and ensembles==
- Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.
- Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works.
- ----
- As a closure, the sources presented have been thoroughly documented. Killthepixelnow (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Best (talk)
- In regard to WP:SIGCOV:
- 220 listeners a month on Spotify that you have just confirmed. Nobody is listening to them!! Facebook is not a valid reference. Its non-RS. A lot of these references are very low-quality. For a band to be on Wikipedia, it must have extensive coverage and it must be something that people are actually listening to. I don't see any evidence and do I lot of these bands. scope_creepTalk 07:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Monterroso, César (2 June 2014). "Reseña de Infection - Acrotomophile Mutilator - Autoeditado - 2014" [Review of Infection - Acrotomophile Mutilator - Self-released - 2014]. El Comercio (Peru) (in Spanish). Lima. Retrieved 22 August 2020.
Infection's new album , Acrotomophile Mutilator, is a new milestone in this long extreme tradition and also maintains a style and sound at a demanding level.
- ^ Mehling, Shane (March 2016). "Infection. Acrotomophile Mutilator [Self-released]". Decibel. Philadelphia: Red Flag Media. p. 88.
And also I'm not real big on death metal this clean and polished, but the playing is super tight and the riffs are brutally melodic; a certain Charles Schuldiner would be pretty into this whole oldschool package.
- ^ Milas, Alexander, ed. (April 2010). "Sounds of the Metal Empire! Planet Metal". Metal Hammer. London: Future Publishing. p. 23.
- ^ Martos, Juan Ángel (30 August 2020). "Infection". Necromance Magazine (in Spanish). Tenerife: Necromance Magazine. p. 22–23. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
- ^ MetalManiaCometh (17 August 2020). "Infection: Beheaded Children Contest". Encyclopedia Metallum - The Metal Archives. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
Beheaded Children Contest drips with its grindcore, thrash, and death influences, especially Cannibal Corpse with how the songs are written, their lyrics / titles, and the general sound.
- ^ Wedage, Ralf (27 August 2020). "Infection - Beheaded Children Contest EP". White Room Reviews (in Dutch). Retrieved 30 August 2020.
- ^ Martos, Juan Ángel (30 August 2020). "Infection (PER) Beheaded Children Contest". Necromance Magazine (in Spanish). Tenerife: Necromance Magazine. p. 37. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
- ^ Correia, Maria (7 August 2020). "Infection anuncia novo EP, "Beheaded Children Contest"" [Infection announces new EP, "Beheaded Children Contest"]. Metal no papel (in Portuguese). Retrieved 30 August 2020.
- ^ Wögerbauer, Christian (5 August 2020). "INFECTION: neue Death Metal EP "Beheaded Children Contest" aus Peru" [INFECTION: New Death Metal EP "Beheaded Children Contest" from Peru]. Vampster (in German). Retrieved 30 August 2020.
- ^ Faithless, Gabriel (25 August 2020). "Review: Infection "Beheaded Children Contest" [Gate of Horror Productions]". Antichrist Magazine. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
Serial killers, depravity, and human evilness are some of the themes that Infection displays in their latest EP by the name of "Beheaded Children Contest", a very interesting name in terms of shocking value by the way.
- ^ DargEdikson (31 July 2020). "Infection - Beheaded Children Contest EP [2020] (Reseña)" [Infection - Beheaded Children Contest EP [2020] (Review)]. Dargedik (in Spanish). Retrieved 30 August 2020.
Infection is known for their gruesome lyrics about mental sickos and any other gore-related topic.
- ^ "Infection - Escucha al completo su nuevo EP, Beheaded Children Contest" [Infection - Listen to their new EP in its entirely, Beheaded Children Contest]. Friedhof Magazine (in Spanish). 27 August 2020. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
- ^ Kumke, Thomas (30 August 2020). "Infection – Beheaded Children Contest". Metal Temple. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
Beheaded Children Contest is a solid Death Metal EP with Grindcore elements. It is raw and played with lots of aggression and follows a well proven formula regarding the sound and the lyrical contents.
- Comment: To the closing admin, note: User:Killthepixelnow had voted multiple times "keep all" when they meant as comment. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I had voted just once. The rest are comments, rightKillthepixelnow (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC).
- Killthepixelnow, well you commented "keep all" two times. Just notifying the closing admin of this. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I had voted just once. The rest are comments, rightKillthepixelnow (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and redirect to Osteopathy. Tone 07:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Osteopathic medicine
- Osteopathic medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparent coatrack of Osteopathic medicine in the United States Doctor of Osteopathic Medicineand Osteopathy. The United States is noted for having a highly unusual situation compared to the rest of the world as regards Osteopathy - Osteopathy is basically in the same position as Chiropracty in the rest of the world, but in the United States - and ONLY in the United Stats, has a highly modified system of education roughly considered equivalent to an M.D. This article acts as if it's covering a worldwide view, but - other than one unsourced claim in the lead that attempts to draw an equivalence between America and the rest of the world - doesn't. That's the definition of a WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 00:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: it seems to be a WP:POVFORK of the articles mentioned in the nom. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 03:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Osteopathy. Both countries which appear on page Osteopathic medicine (USA and Canada) are covered in subsection Regulation_and_legal_status of page Osteopathy. Hence this is a content fork of page Osteopathy (rather than any other page), and should be deleted or merged and redirected specifically to Osteopathy. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to Osteopathy, as a POVFORK we should not be merging anything, and it should be deleted before redirecting for the same reason. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. “Osteopathic medicine” is effectively medicine practised by DOs, and is adequately explained by that article, which also links to Osteopathic medicine in the United States and Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. I would tentatively support a redirect to the Osteopathic medicine in the United States article, but I think the DO article is more appropriate. Brunton (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Beyond Blue (film)
- Beyond Blue (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this film meets the notablity threshold. It's only been mentioned in the news by one organisation, Times of India, which is a generally unreliable source, and of the four sources given in the article: one is the film's own website, one page doesn't exist, and the other two are Times of India articles where it's been described as a "homemade film". ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}
on reply) 00:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ItsPugle (please use
{{reply|ItsPugle}}
on reply) 00:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC) - Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I thought this was shown at Cannes, but it appears to only have featured in the commerical part, not the awards part. Not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 22:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.