Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,540,339 edits
Line 6: Line 6:
==California==
==California==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lingerie_Basketball_League}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Griffin}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Griffin}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Drew_Shirley}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Drew_Shirley}}

Revision as of 19:45, 21 January 2024

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to California. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


California

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 01:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lingerie Basketball League

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

A city league with four teams that at best played two seasons. Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV during a search that included Newspapers.com. Alvaldi (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The two existing sources make for SIGCOV, though I agree it’s not clear this will have enduring notability. WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WilsonP NYC Of the sources, this has no information about the league other than a short blurb about one of its players. The Fox article is about lingerie athletic leagues in general and has no information about the basketball league other than mentioning that Jenny McCarthy's watched her sister play in a game. So no, the two existing sources do not make for significant coverage, not even close. Alvaldi (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My judgement is that the Fox News story qualifies as a profile, given the league is the lede and subject of the first two paragraphs. How about we see what everyone else thinks? Despite your comment I think it is, in fact, “close.” WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WilsonP NYC When the only thing about the league that can be extracted from those paragraphs are the name of the league and that a notable person watched its unnamed sibling playing in it then that is not significant coverage about that league. It is the literal definition of a trivial mention per WP:SIGCOV. From that source we can write the following article "The Lingerie Basketball League was a basketball league where Jenny McCarthy's sister once played in." Not exactly encyclopedic stuff. Alvaldi (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Alvaldi. The two sources mentioned above are clearly passing mentions with no encyclopedic coverage.
JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a silly enough publicity stunt that you'd expect there to be a good deal of coverage; has anybody tried to track some down? jp×g🗯️ 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as I noted in the nomination I did but was unable to find any. It should also be noted that GNG requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage. So even if there was a brief burst of coverage around the beginning of the league but nothing more then it would still fail our notability guidelines. Alvaldi (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I read WP:SUSTAINED to say "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.", which does not mean a subject does not have to have a continual flow of coverage to be notable. I have been around WP:AFD a long time and have never even seen SUSTAINED as a rational for deletion. WP:NTEMP (a different section of the same guideline) states "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been around WP:AFD a long time and have never even seen SUSTAINED as a rational for deletion. What? It's used as a rationale regularly, although often misattributed as BLP1E or BIO1E for bios. NTEMP just means the topic doesn't have to have current coverage if it received appropriately sustained coverage sometime in the past. It's not an exemption from SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen BIO1E often. A league that last a few years is a different thing than a BIO1E. Really don't recall SUSTAINED.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no significant coverage of this league whatsoever, neither a brief burst of one nore sustained. Brief and trivial mentions do not indicate notability per GNG. You should know this as an experienced editor. Furthermore, there are no indications that this league lasted more than its first year, which in reality was a only few games played by four teams in a span of less than a month. Alvaldi (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Murderdolls which preserves the history in the event sourcing is IDed Star Mississippi 22:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Griffin

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

Ineligible for WP:PROD. Redirection has been contested by an IP address. As far as I can tell no WP:CSD criteria apply. So, article has 1 reference which is primary by nature of it being an interview and the link is dead. Looking for sourcing for a WP:BEFORE is a nightmare due to the name being shared with Eric Griffin (boxer). Narrowing results nets me nothing. I've tried regular Google, Google news, news archive, and the Wikipedia Library - all without success. As such Eric Griffin inherently fails WP:GNG. —Sirdog (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, i actually think this guy is somewhat notable --FMSky (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello FMSky, so you are basing your vote on "I think"? Would you please provide sources. dxneo (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hes probably notable per WP:BAND for having having been a "musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" -- FMSky (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FMSky, which WP:MUSICBIO are you talking about cause it says "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources...", RS illustrating SIGCOV to satisfy GNG must still be provided regardless. dxneo (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Murderdolls: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. I see nothing properly sourced for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk  12:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Shirley

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

Article only cites two sources, one is dead and the other is an interview. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG and should be deleted per WP:BANDMEMBER. glman (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. BusterD (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal ASE

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Most of the articles sources are not reliable (see Genius and Sportskeeda) and/or closely connected to the subject. Also seems to fall under WP:BLP1E, with the sole event potentially violating the WP:BLP guidelines. Jurta talk/he/they 14:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, also the Verbal ASE#controversy section needs some cleanup. Jothefiredragon (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Redirect to Hazbin_Hotel#Fandom, as it's more concise.Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 04:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. It fails notability, and the only reason it's here is becouse of the recent meme/controversy. Also, I disagree with the notion too redirect him to Hazbin Hotel. He isn't officially associated with the show, and he made videos of dozens of cartoons, so why should he be linked to this specific cartoon. And yeah, yeah, meme, 50k on video, bad taste, and so on. Nobody will remember that in a month. I don't think redirect is needed.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 14:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything needs a redirect to everything. If his article gets deleted, I don't see why we need to keep redirect becouse of a meme that's definitely not notable at all. Also, there's a difference between a "forgotten" celebrity, and a meme stoping being revelant after a week. And in this case I'm referring to the fact the meme won't be remembered, not the artist. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: [1] very interesting, but it is a video monologue from the subject. Fails WP:IS. I would like to keep this article, but I can't find sources and can't just vote keep because ILIKEIT.
[2] is very promotional for Hazbin Hotel.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: According to the article, Verbal ASE has held jobs, performed publicly, collaborated with other artists, been contracted for gigs, and runs a mid-tier YouTube channel. Your average successful artist, in other words. While making it in the art world is admirable, it is not notable. Verbal ASE deserves no article. Dieknon (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelflife Records

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. No obvious WP:ATD, though there are pages on some of its artists. Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Flatter

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SapientX

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

Refbombed article about an AI startup, packed with references that don’t mention the subject at all, or mention it in passing, or are PR. There are a few refs that discuss the subject in detail so it might be possible to stubify and keep this, but it seems marginal so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a co-founder of SapientX. To date, we have 31 press articles and TV interviews, published 5 white papers, issued 14 press releases and we will be featured in Dominique Wu's soon to be released book on XR. I realize that most of the above is not highly valued by Wikipedia standards.
I would also like to share with you important historical milestones that are not well supported by press:
1. SapientX's conversational AI work began in 2003 under ARDA's NIMD research program. This work was done by parent company Planet 9 Studios and the IP was transferred to SapientX in 2016. Under this funding, we developed Sage, the first commercial conversational 3D character. (IBM Watson also began in the NIMD program.) This can all be documented with valid footnotes.
2. Bruce Wilcox joined our team in 2008 and developed an upgraded AI system later to be called ChatScript and released into open source. ChatScript is the first generative AI conversational system that I am aware of. The press falsely portrays ChatGPT as the first generative AI system. ChatScript was used in our RayGun navigation platform. Customers included BMW, Clarion, Intel, Nvidia and Magellan GPS.
3. In 2016, we developed Mitsubishi Mia, the first conversational 3D character for automotive use.
4. In 2021, we publicly demonstrated the first life-size conversation 3D character in a prototype for Lowe's.
5. In 2022, we delivered Chief, a life-size museum docent, to the Liberty Station retail complex in San Diego.
The point that I would like to make is that we have consistently been leaders in conversational AI and these achievements should be captured in Wikipedia. I can provide documentation of each fact asserted above. I acknowledge that these same facts are not fully supported in the commercial press. So I ask, are press citations more valuable than actual historical achievement? I will be happy to add these facts along with citations, to the SapientX article. DavidColleen (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi David, we require (a) in-depth (b) analysis/opinion/investigation/fact checking that are (3) clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the topic company. So on the basis that the TV interviews are essentially giving somebody from the company speaking, the white papers are published by the company, press releases are published by the company, and the book isn't published as of yet so we've no idea of the content, that leaves us with the 31 press articles. An analysis of those articles to date shows that they regurgitate the information provided by the company. They fail (a), (b) and (c) of the test above. HighKing++ 15:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks HighKing. Yes, I already stated that I understood your evaluation of the present footnotes. I can introduce the above facts to the article supported by new source documents and references. I'm not versed in your rules. Shall I directly add the above facts? DavidColleen (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While it's certainly noteworthy (in the colloquial sense) that someone is developing NLP applications using symbolic AI in the year 2024, I am not convinced it's notable in the Wikipedian sense. Most of the sourcing is passing mentions and I don't see a whole lot of significant in-depth coverage. jp×g🗯️ 07:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course symbolic AI has its place in 2024. Companies approaching unicorn status like Kore.AI and JustAnswer use the same underlying symbolic NLP (ChatScript). It's as effective as machine learning for intent detection. Earl Sacerdoti reviewed SapientX's NL technology for a fundraising site and said: "the symbolic-processing approach uses programs rather than statistics to interpret inputs. This makes the systems less robust than the statistically-based ones, but completely reliable. This is important for tasks like controlling automotive subsystems, where a language-based control system performing the incorrect task is distracting if not dangerous." And we all know the unreliabilities of LLM's. SapientX blends NLP approaches as appropriate for task. (Bruce Wilcox, SapientX). 90.214.57.60 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my first Wikipedia post. I'm a co-founder of SapientX. While it's currently fashionable to use machine learning and more recently large language models for machine conversation, both fail to offer the accuracy and reliability needed for serious commercial applications. For instance, Open AI, in their recent white paper, claims only 78% conversational accuracy for GPT-4 asking the same question 5 times. The core of SapientX's conversation system is ChatScript (symbolic reasoning) which yields 99% accuracy in our internal testing. ChatScript was developed by my co-founder Bruce Wilcox. Unfortunately, there is no standard for testing or third party test results. BTW, we also offer a version of our software that combines ChatScript (for accuracy) and GPT-4 (for its ability to riff).
    JPxG suggests that press coverage is the measuring stick for noteworthiness. I disagree. I will relay to you that TomTom conducted testing of what they felt to be the three strongest conversational AI systems in the market; Cerence (formerly Nuance), SoundHound and SapientX. They reported to me that SapientX outperformed the others. Additionally, Gartner recently ranked Kore AI as the top conversational AI system. Kore uses ChatScript. Gartner did not include SapientX in the evaluation as we did not meet their revenue level. DavidColleen (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any non-trade publication sources and I'm not seeing significant coverage of the company beyond the Trump chatbot review. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does raising $2,155,753.95 by crowdfunding 2,798 people make it more notable? https://www.startengine.com/offering/SAPIENTX 90.214.57.60 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. As noted above by a co-founder, there are very little sources and this may be WP:TOOSOON. HighKing++ 15:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks HighKing. Your comments help me to understand your evaluation criteria. Using press articles to validate facts works well for topics such as baseball, but for deeply technical topics, such as conversational AI, I don't know a single person in the press versed enough in the topic to write a solid article without the input of someone like myself or Bruce Wilcox. Instead, they write about what is fashionable, such as LLM's this week. There is even large institutional bias, that I have encountered, at the university level. One head of an AI department at a Finnish university to me that "if it's not machine learning, it's not AI". This of course is silly.
    Nonetheless, I believe that I can support most of the new facts, listed above, with multiple documents. Is it okay to proceed with this? DavidColleen (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DavidColleen, based on what you've said above, you may wish to consider the following. There are different standards required for supporting "facts" within the article to those we use to establish whether a topic is notable. So, for example, "facts" can be supported by *any* source which meets our criteria as a *reliable* source as per WP:RS. Sources that may be used to establish notability need to meet a different standard. Also, different topic categories may have their own guidelines which provide better explanations on what sources will meet the criteria. For companies, we use GNG/WP:NCORP and I've summarised the standards for sources which may be used to establish notability above. Be aware, this current process of AfD is only concerned with notability, not with the facts. Adding more sources to support some of the factual content may not lead to assisting in establishing notability. As you've acknowledged above, establishing notability for specialised companies is difficult because articles in newspapers are often written by journalists who may not have sufficient knowledge of the topic company. Similarly, your comment about the head of the AI department appears (to me) to be directed at the technical area of "machine learning vs AI", not at this specific company. Many years ago somebody summarised our requirements as "If the company is notable, somebody unconnected will have written something decent about it" and that still holds true albeit we've had to clarify what is meant by "somebody unconnected" and "written something decent". HighKing++ 14:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan M. Isaac

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Couldn't anything to satisfy a WP:BLP article. scope_creepTalk 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. If anyone wants this userfying for improvement, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Estrin

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ronzio

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

The article subject still fails WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG same as last time this was at AfD. A WP:BEFORE yielded no significant coverage, just brief mentions in books. Although the American Air Museum source appears to be new, it is apparently a user-generated source written by an author with no expertise. The actor has been deceased for over thirty years and more coverage is unlikely to come up. The Night Watch (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator's assessment of the American Air Museum source and I have been unable to find anything beyond a passing credit or phrase about his role as Litmus. Officer-turned-actor sounds like an interesting life story but we've got to wait for others to write about it before there's enough for a Wikipedia article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ and while I'm not sure one will develop on the Talk with respect to merger, it's clear one isn't going to develop here. Star Mississippi 15:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17 Reasons

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

Subject fails WP:NALBUMS and GNG. This has been repeatedly redirected and restored making this redirect costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would consider established fanzines reliable when it comes to opinions (i.e. reviews). They have a firmly established place within subculture, and would be a considerably better source than if a mainstream newspaper suddenly tried to dip its toes in the scene. There is of course a considerable difference between MRR, Flipside (fanzine) and Punk Planet and someone's entirely new fanzine. Whereas reviews are fine, capsule reviews don't contribute to notability, but can be added nonetheless. I found a capsule review here and a somewhat longer review here. Geschichte (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, so far editors are split between delete, redirect and keep. If I were closing I'd be interested in more discussion as to whether/why the sources show notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Weak keep to weak merge. The two sources J04n (01:54, 18 January 2024) added do show notability, the first, yes some, the second yes but it is covering all their albums and I read it as supporting a merge to Link 80. This merge if a good idea should not be rushed from AfD, and in the meantime, this page on a borderline independently notable album is ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Navarro

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

This is a student-created article on an emerging artist who does not meet WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. I always feel a little sad when encountering these student efforts, but the semester is over and it has not been brought up to WP standards for notability, nor do I see the possibility of that happening any time in the near future. The references consist of simple name checks, and primary sources, and her own website/blog bio. A WP:BEFORE search reveals only social media or primary sources. It is WP:TOOSOON for this emerging artist; perhaps in a few more years after she receives more coverage she will be notable, but not now. Netherzone (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I also agree this is an earnest effort. Juxtapoz is a legit publication but it’s just a mention. If there was anything else for a primary source to work with that could change my view. 108.41.198.35 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Academy of Aeronautics

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

Mentions are minor, and in relation to other notable people/events. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, but I couldn't verify that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article had a declined WP:PROD, so is ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Delfast. ✗plicit 12:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tonkopi

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

No real assertion of notability or content beyond being the CEO of Delfast, which already has its own article. Little-to-no non-trivial coverage of him as a person rather than the company. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tremendum Pictures

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

The Hollywood Reporter article used as a ref doesn't seem to mention Tremendum. I can't find enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see much coverage of the company itself to meet WP:NCORP, which can be tough to meet. Everything I see is mostly a mention that one of their projects is linked to them, nothing about the company. -2pou (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Prang (LA County Assessor)

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

Poorly sourced and highly advertorialized article about a local political figure not shown to pass WP:NPOL. If his name sounded familiar to you, we've indeed been through this before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Prang -- which got recreated just days after deletion and was salted, explaining why this version features such weird overdisambiguation in the title.
But county assessor is not a level of office that confers automatic free passage of NPOL, and this version as written is extremely overdependent on primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- the test at NPOL #2 is the depth and range of WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing that can be shown to demonstrate that his career in politics has made him a subject of third-party coverage and analysis, and is not passed just by using primary sources to verify that he exists, but what little GNG-worthy reliable sourcing is present here doesn't come close to matching what's actually required.
There's still just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to a Wikipedia article -- and conflict of interest editing might be in the mix of possibilities here, given that this version was started by a virtual WP:SPA with virtually no established history of contributing on any other topic. I also note that this version studiously avoids the prior version's attempt to stake his notability on detail-free allusions to some sort of unspecified sex scandal, but that's beside the point since it wouldn't make a difference to the article's value either way (though it does bolster my COI suspicions). Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor. Can you help me make this page better and avoid deletion? Coffee&2Ideas (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He would have to have both a much stronger notability claim than just existing as a county assessor — that's not a level of office at which people automatically get articles just for existing as officeholders, it's a level of office at which you would have to be able to demonstrate credible grounds to consider him one of the most uniquely significant county assessors in the entire country — and much, much better and more reliable sourcing (meaning media coverage about him) to support it than you've shown. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. In AfD for three weeks and two relists. No consensus or helpful comments. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Grupo Sexo

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

Appears to be a non-notable band that does not meet relevant notability guidelines (WP:BAND). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent that this article's subject is covered by extant sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Sandstein 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kull

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO - requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Dartmouth College is a primary source and therefore not independent. Dan arndt (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K20HZ

K20HZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTBV-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InFORM Decisions

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

Subject lacks the needed sourcing to pass the WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No secondary sources cited and a search didn’t produce evidence that any exist. WilsonP NYC (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Tossing aside the IPs and SPAs who should not have participated here per WP:GS/RUSUKR, both the Keep and Delete !voters have made some legitimate policy-based arguments. There do appear to be some sources that meet our standards, and many that do not. It seems unlikely that a relist will make consensus any clearer, so the best path would be to improve the article as much as it can be so future editors can determine if there's enough there, once things cool down. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira

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

Taken to Afd because its been here 4 times already. Legitimately promoted from draft. May pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creepTalk 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Delete, same as the last 4 times. "This is the 4th time in AfD, I'd salt liberally if this goes towards deletion, again. " Tired of seeing this pop up, he's not covered in any RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go to bat on this one. I wholeheartedly disagree that 4 prior AfDs mean that this must be deleted again, there's nothing in the policy that states this. In fact, setting that into policy would just open it up to abuse. Reviewing the deletion discussions reveals barely any consensus and it would be inappropriate to salt based upon such a weak foundation (this isn't a Chris Chan situation with obvious harassment).
    I think your comment is a little misleading, Delete, same as the last 4 times is what you've voted for the last 4 times, not that there's been a consensus to delete 4 times. I doubt you had any bad intent by this, but its an important clarification since not everyone is going to dig through the past AfDs. We have one draftify, one keep, one WP:GS/RUSUKR delete (which says nothing about notability), and one delete a decade ago.
    Regarding WP:BIO, we have New York Daily News, The Independent, NBC, Los Angeles Times, and Business Insider just to name a few. Yes, the article could be better written, but this was more than enough for it to be passed out of the draftspace initially. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete as a non-notable journalist/relationship coach that only got coverage for passing away. Nothing in his career warranted an article here, passing away doesn't get you notability. There have been multiple attempts to use semi-reliable sources in each of the last 4 noms, with nothing ever found each and every time. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing away doesn't get you notability, show me the policy. Passing away in a notable way does, in fact, get you notability (as just one exception that could apply here). Plus it's been a perennial discussion that he is a notable author/public figure (see below and prior discussions). The only time there's been a consensus he's not notable was in 2014, which was a full decade ago and not reflective of the current article. "Nothing ever found each and every time" is blatantly false and salting is an extreme length to go. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dying isn't notable, NOTMEMORIAL. It's been happening forever, and we aren't a necrology. We need sourced that talk about the person extensively, in reliable sources, which we don't have. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTMEMORIAL Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Yes, but notable murders, heavily publicized deaths, etc. have long been an exception to this (See Alan Berg as just one example from List of journalists killed in the United States). There are frankly hundreds of examples to call upon and Lira's death is somewhat controversial to say the least. Regardless, my argument is that he is notable outside of his death and the vast coverage of his death is a symptom of that notability. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed, but he wasn't notable in life, so doesn't get so after dying. He's been discussed 4 times here already and was never deemed to be notable is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But nowhere in the policy does it state that prior AfDs are indicative of an article's viability come a new AfD. The 1st and 4th AfDs are nonstarters since they were a decade old and a procedural matter, respectively. The 3rd AfD ruled "As there's some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow, the argument to draftify is more persuasive than that supporting outright deletion." (similar in the 2nd AfD) which lends to the credibility that 2 years ago he was already straddling the line of notability. At this point, seeing that Fox News, South China Morning Post, and maybe the Daily Beast (Which are relatively reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), have all run pieces on him in just the last 2 days, what's to say we can't call his detention/death notable? The aforementioned list I gave you has many similar articles that were kept but have even less coverage than Gonzalo (Meaning that Keeping this article is in line with precedent and policy). The only reason this keeps going to AfD is because it's politically contentious; given 10 years I doubt we'd find the same amount of scrutiny. Frankly, we've kept articles for less. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    in what world would Fox News be considered reliable on the subject of Russian propaganda? Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. I was unaware of the recent 2023 downgrading until I went looking. Fox used to be a WP:CONTEXTMATTERS source, but this has since changed. This doesn't change my broader opinion since there are many better sources brought up below, but it was a good catch. Thanks!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    not only that but debunked: [10] Tucker Carlson, you guys. Elon Musk. I can't believe I still have to point out that these are not reliable sources. The man denied the Bucha massacre for crying out loud, in the face of massive coverage by actual RS. Somebody who cares so little about facts is emphatically not a "journalist". Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not Wikipedia's job to determine someone's profession, if the sourcing calls them a journalist than that's final. We are meant to be dispassionate, not feeding our own biases; lest we perform a No true scottsman. One a personal note, I detest Lira's journalism, but it is not our place to gatekeep. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah? Produce an RS that does this. An actual RS. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here [11], it's a video produced by journalist Kim Iversen for The Hill discussing Lira, in which he's called a journalist. The New York Times called him a 'American commentator". The Independent calls him a self-described journalist. Perhaps the title 'political commentator and self-described journalist' would be a happy medium? 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 22:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT might support "wannabe propagandist". I've been laughing too 😂 hard to check the video out yet. I'd have to check on the Independent's reliability since it was sold but it is moot because they don't claim he's a journalist in the first place. Elinruby (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, the current prose in the article ... Chilean-American novelist, film director, commentator, YouTuber and life coach blogger is more than sufficient. The current article never calls him a journalist at all (only using the word journalist once to refer to someone else), which makes me wonder what the issue is with this term. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Several editors say so here and some of the better sources refer to the Kremlin's attempt to portray him as such. It's what they do -- portray their useful idiot as a prisoners of conscience on free speech issues. That's why. Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lira, has, in my opinion been notable enough in all four cases of previous deletion to have a Wiki page. Although, in the previous four cases, there was too much vandalism for the pages to be worthy to keep. This time appears to be different. Also, Lira wrote his own Wiki page at least one of four those times, to my knowledge. In short, I disagree with your argument and believe this article should be kept. NesserWiki (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only really good source on this guy is a Newsweek article, which, tellingly, has the title "Who is Gonzalo Lira." The article was only released because Lira died recently, see WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM. The article was moved to mainspace too quickly - we should have waited to see if any other mainstream sources started reporting on. As is, Lira is only really notable within the Pro-Russian corners of the internet, making finding sources on him difficult - the problems with the non-pro-Russian sources about him have been amply discussed in the previous deletion discussions and on the talk page (Daily Beast, for instance).--Ermenrich (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is confusing to me. What does the title of the article have to do with its status as an independent top level media profile? The rest of your argument stands but wouldn't every thing that's notable have gone through a phase where they weren't, and then they became notable, and spawned articles with titles like "Hey check out this thing that wasn't notable until now" or the conceptual equivalent? WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyi Newsweek is on the Perennial Sources list as generally not reliable after 2013 when it was sold. Elinruby (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lira honestly and accurately reported on the corruption and brutality of the Zelensky regime being propped up by Biden. He was arrested, tortured and murdered by the Ukranians for his beliefs and being one of the very few to present an opposing point of view to the US State Department narrative.. And even if one disagrees with that assessment, he had a large following on YouTube and if Wiki can mention the passing of other YT 'stars' and product influencers as well as the deaths of horses, turtles, manatees, etc as done in the past, it can mention Lira's biography as well 2601:58C:C180:4E10:6586:AFB9:C125:3204 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is the only contribution to Wikipedia from this address Elinruby (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being murdered for your beliefs, a perfectly common occurance, doesn't make you automatically notable. Wikipedia is not the place for a memorial article. This article needs WP:SALTED. The subject seems to be non-notable. scope_creepTalk 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People keep pushing these YouTubers as notable. The article should not have been created once let alone five times. On my phone, longer policy-citing reply to follow, but notably article seriously skews tbe facts, sources are awful for the topic area, and as someone asked already, how is misogyny a career highlight? Also, "director"???
    /me scoffs Elinruby (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please examine his life before he became a YouTuber. Fairly significant career. He got a million dollar advance for a novel he wrote. Thriley (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the source for the million dollars is an archived image of a paywall. It looks like a fantastic source until you click it. Elinruby (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m seeing it: “ If you nurse a secret novel in your sock-drawer, and with it dreams of publication and literary immortality, you should meet a beacon of hope by the name of Gonzalo Lira . Chilean-born, now living in Los Angeles, Lira is the author of the novel Counterparts , which just helped him to a $1-million (U.S.) two-book deal from Putnam in New York.” Thriley (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Do you subscribe? Are you on a phone? I've definitely gotten a paywall twice but i'll try again later.
    Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am logged on the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Very helpful for access to an overwhelming amount of material. Highly recommend you join if you haven’t already. Thriley (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Been there done that but thank you. In return may I point out that you can get 100 free searches a month at JStor just for creating an account? However while a lot of the sources used here might be eligible for sourcing something extremely uncontroversial like, for example, the agricultural products of Oregon, this is not that. The Ukrainian war and its propaganda are controversial enough to require special handling in and of themselves. This is a BLP whose best sources call the man a liar and a shill, and that's before we start looking at a plurality of the sources, if not a majority being unreliable, and what appears to be some very organized coordination happening somewhere. Sourcing that just barely reaches an absolutely minimum standard is not what we need here and at the moment we don't even have that... That's the issue here as I see it. Elinruby (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)of[reply]
Many folk get big advances for work but don't make it as authors. There is no book reviews at all, outwith the normal trade reviews for libraries and what so, so he pass WP:NAUTHOR. Getting lots of money isn't a criteria of notability. scope_creepTalk 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elinruby: It seems to. The first 10 references are a joke. Anything you send me will be appreciated. He is not film director either. As far as I can determine he is directed one film and a short. That doesn't make you a film director. 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am done digging here. The above is more than enough for all three criteria WP:COVERAGE: depth, duration, and diversity of sources. - Altenmann >talk 19:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with the Daily Beast have already been discussed on both the article talk page and I believe in previous deletion discussions. I mentioned it in my comment above.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we remove the Daily Beast as a source for this article altogether, there are still other reliable sources covering him. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in Talk:Gonzalo_Lira#"Daily_Beast"_article_not_reliable_source and I see in favor of arguments there that the accusation is false. - Altenmann >talk 19:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you propose we use a source that calls Lira a "Pro-Putin shill" without calling him those words due to WP:BLP concerns?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPUBLIC. That he is Pro-Putin is claimed in many sources. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP means Biography of LIVING Persons. Or do we have to wait until the New York Times confirms that he is dead? 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:F817:F206:1084:4987 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP also applies to the recently deceased.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it has to be drafted again. This page is a mesh of editions and it can affect the impartiality of the matter. For example: in his career we can see that the misogyny in his videos is treated like a highlight in his career. How the hell is that a highlight and not a controversial element? Also, there's a ton to depure in the article that can be resumed in a few words without losing anything important. SupaaWiki >talk 21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only contribution to en
wiki from this address Elinruby (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep....independent significant coverage in reliable sources addressing the subject in depth and directly....(;) including, randomly, El País (Costa Rica)....Helsinki Times...Hora do Povo... TF1, etc, etc. (And Afds should be about deletion not cleanup)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The El Pais piece is sourced directly to Sputnik (news agency). The Helsinki Times article is obviously not reliable for reasons I have already laid out in the article talk page ("Zelensky regime" "eight years of bombing of the civilian population of Donbas by Kyiv"). The "Horo do Povo" article is also obviously unreliable: it describes Lira uncritically as a "journalist" and contains "Kyiv regime" in its headline and again appears to rely entirely on Sputnik for a source. Other sterling journalism from this paper is a headline about "Fascist Netanyahu". TF1 appear to be reliable though, but again, its just debunking Tucker Carlson.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ......No comment except that one can add PLENTY of other existing sources in various languages, including, again, almost at random, Diario de Yucatán, La Tercera, Hungarian Conservative, El Correo, etc, etc, etc. And I'll leave it at that if you don't mind. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and I bet I can show how each one of them is also an unreliable source. "Zelenskyy regime", uses Sputnik as a source, uncritically uses Carlson, Lira himself, and Alex Rubinstein as sources of information. I can't access the final one, as it's behind a paywall, but I'm sure it would be the same.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TF1 is probably the best source there, but it's basically fact checking other sites, so isn't strictly about Lira. Newsweek, El Pais aren't acceptable for the reason listed. Daily Beast isn't a reliable source. Unsure of the Helskinki Times article. I'm not seeing notability with these sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... Per above. I agree that removing this out of the draftspace was premature but not necessarily disqualifying, Mushy Yank put it better than I could. Honestly, we've kept articles for less and I remain unconvinced by Oaktree's argument that 4 prior AfDs must mean that we blacklist/salt this article in perpetuity. In addition, only 2 of the AfDs actually resulted in deletion. One is from a decade ago and one was a procedural deletion due to sanctions. There's been no consensus that this guy is not noteworthy and at this point, it feels more like beating a dead horse than anything productive. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Several important sources such as Newsweek reported on his death. The case is controversial and has had quite an international echo. I note that the article has been translated into 11 languages[15] including English and that between 12, 13 and 14 January alone the English article made 1348 views, which denotes that there is substantial general attention.[16]--Mhorg (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On January 15, the article had 15,500 views.[17] The article has been translated into another language, a total of 12.[18] Mhorg (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Newsweek is not a reliable source Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With two novels published by major publishers, each of which received multiple reviews at the time, he meets WP:NAUTHOR, regardless of his later notoriety. His activity in Ukraine has certainly garnered the most in-depth coverage, and even though the reliability of some sources is contested (WP:DAILYBEAST, WP:NEWSWEEK), I believe we have enough reliable source coverage to include that part of his life as well. Here are the best sources:
Reviews of Counterparts
  • Zvirin, Stephanie (1997-12-15). "Counterparts". Booklist. 94 (8) – via ProQuest. (173 words)
  • Steinberg, Sybil S. "Counterparts". Publishers Weekly. 244 (47): 53 – via ProQuest. (222 words)
  • Perez-Stable, Maria A (December 1997). "Counterparts". Library Journal. 122 (20): 154 – via ProQuest. (160 words)
Reviews of Acrobat
  • Smith, Roger (January 2003). "Acrobat". Magill's Book Reviews – via EBSCO.
  • "Acrobat". Publishers Weekly. 249 (9): 54. 2002-03-04 – via EBSCO. (282 words)
  • Wall, Patrick (2002-01-03). "Acrobat". Library Journal. 127 (4) – via EBSCO.
  • "Acrobat". Kirkus Reviews. 70 (3). 2002-02-01.
  • Pitt, David (2002-03-01). "Acrobat". Booklist. 98 (13): 1096. (starred review)
Other reliable-source coverage
Jfire (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article seems to have been restored entirely because of the news of Lira's death. But death does not confer notability. If he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward. And the vast majority of reporting about him seems to be from very unreliable sources. But I suppose this is a weak delete; I'm open to Jfire's argument that he's notable as an author. — Red XIV (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > But death does not confer notability. If he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward
    Is this actual policy? I can think of many examples of how the manner of death itself could certainly confer notability, and a political killing is high on that list. WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you spelled pneumonia wrong. How is pneumonia" a political killing? Elinruby (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To rebut these arguments:
    > he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward
    The sources above (from me) and below (from Bedivere) show that he was notable (as an author) prior to his death.
    > the vast majority of reporting about him seems to be from very unreliable sources
    Notability is based on an evaluation of the reliable sources. The existence of unreliable sources, in any volume, does not imply that a subject is non-notable. Jfire (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If he can source it yeah maaaaybe Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. As a writer he received lots of coverage in his native Chile. The National Library has archived and released at least 24 articles related to Lira and his work, available online here [19]. That includes articles from El Mercurio, Las Últimas Noticias, La Tribuna de Los Ángeles, Qué Pasa magazine, among many others. These are all reliable sources from Chile and should suffice. And that does not count the coverage of Lira's activism, which has been called "one event" by commenters above. --Bedivere (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NAUTHOR with four books, two of which received enough coverage and were published by major publishing labels. He's received plenty of coverage in Chilean media, including in major news outlets, and compounded with the recent influx of news from English media regarding his antics in Ukraine and regarding his death, this is clearly a WP:ONEEVENT situation. — Knightoftheswords 04:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reasons as last four times and other comments above. As User:Redxiv points out death does not confer notability - if he didn’t pass notability last four times then probably still doesn’t. As User:Ermenrich points out, the closest we have to an actual RS here is Newsweek which… isn’t an RS (though some people mistakenly think it is because it once was… like 15 years ago). The rest is junk like Sputnik or its derivatives or other obscure sources. This guy was/is well known within certain online circles but that’s not enough for an encyclopedia article. Volunteer Marek 07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, the National Library of Chile link above contains several articles from the 1990s, all from reliable Chilean sources, making this person pass NAUTHOR, and completely disregarding their recent years. Bedivere (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meeting the author criteria is enough, I am convinced. The more current coverage however is also sufficient in my view. And lastly of course the manner of someone’s death can be relevant to their notability. WilsonP NYC (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although we need to watch out for biased sources so as to maintain NPOV. Even prior to the attention he received recently, Lira passed NAUTHOR. And contrary to what some people suggested, I think his involvement in the Ukraine situation definitely is relevant to his notability. 2804:214:86BB:1774:4E45:EE50:F8E0:C061 (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedians famously have very low threshhold for GNG and tend to confuse a lot of sources as enough, when they often don't look at the quality of those sources. There's also clear confusion above, where thinking notability is derived. Just because his novels or films were reviewed is not proof the author himself is notable. And the paltry reviews are not enough to justify even articles on the novels. The novels and author are separate subjects. As an author, youtuber, and filmmaker he's a nobody who had little impact or notice. He would potentially be notable for the events leading to arrest and death. The poor sourcing of the article is a reflection to how few actual honest to goodness news sources have covered him. Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Salon, are very fluffy internet focused sites that I do everything to avoid in proper articles. Newsweek was once a solid source like 20 years ago, but in the internet age has degraded to being declared outright unreliable. A brief notice in NBC News piece is the only proper source in the entire article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he's also a cowboy, an astronaut and a ballerina.<g> Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he passes WP:NAUTHOR. The book reviews aren't particularly decent. There is no literary journals or critical theory journals. There is nothing in contemporary magazines where you expect to find a good reviews. Kirkus isn't something you would normally use, Publishers weekly is a industry trade journal and effectively non-rs for the most part in this context, its never used as a review source. The Library journal is an industry journal, again. Mcgill, I'm not sure about but not get the right signals from it. It looks like a trade journal. Booklist is the same. Its not rs. scope_creepTalk 14:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not much has changed since the last vote. He is still not notable enough, and his death did not make him more notable. Bear in mind that this is the 5th nomination, and this article was deleted every time. BeŻet (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"this is the 5th nomination, and this article was deleted every time" is not accurate. Only one of the prior nominations closed as a delete on notability grounds: the first one in 2014. The second closed as "no consensus", the third closed as "draftify" and the closer noted "some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow", and the fourth was a procedural delete on non-notability grounds. So the only time the article has been deleted for lack of notability was ten years ago, prior to Lira's activity in Ukraine, in an AFD that did not locate nor discuss the English and Spanish language coverage of Lira's writing career. Consensus can change. Jfire (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not accurate. All the votes following the first when happened after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Lack of notability was clearly established during the third vote ("draftify" simply means to delete the article, move it to a draft and wait for a change in notability). The fourth vote was "delete" because nothing has been changed. I still believe that he is not notable. BeŻet (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
aw shucks somebody has turned up a passing mention of him on a New York Times list of ridiculous propaganda claims, and he got a whole paragraph! Then there is the archived image of a Globe and Mail paywall referencing the million dollars; that's good to go, right? Seriously, that's with only a very cursory click or two. Don't let me get started on a full-scale source verification here, none of us has time for that and I already have a backlog in source verification... Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Story was reported on in Newsweek, Fox News and the New York Post, his case has been addressed at State Department briefings and by the Russian foreign minister multiple times, and by other notable (if not always reliable) commentators, he was mention in multiple other outlets before his arrest and death. Can't see how this doesn't pass WP:GNG (EDIT as of 1/20: this has been a learning experience for me in terms of which sources are considered reliable by consensus, however there are still plenty of sources that are reliable/in-depth, many of which I or other editors have added to the article since 1/16.) JSwift49 14:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek, Fox News, and New York Post, are all crap sources and I try to remove them from any articles I find. This article is just piling crap tabloid and internet sources on top of each other. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Post is not an acceptable source, nor is Newsweek or Fox News [20]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chilean newspapers, The Bulwark, The Independent, Business Insider, New York Daily News, Kyiv Post, Europa Press etc. JSwift49 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NYT, LA Times, NBC, TF1... If we want to remove those sources you mentioned we can have a discussion about that, but he is mentioned in many in which there is no dispute of reliability, so how does this warrant a deletion of the article? JSwift49 16:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSwift49, I was in the other discussion.
These are biased pro-Ukrainian editors, who are sealioning this either discussion to waste your time. They do not like that Lira's death makes the Ukrainian government look bad.
They literally cite YouTube videos by this Jake Broe guy who had a spat with Lira on Twatter over e-celeb crap.
I hate to deflect but I don't see any of these editors looking at the Sarah Ashton-Cirillo's (related to GL Ukraine situation) Wikipedia article which is all just tabloid LGBT magazines, Fox News Las Vegas, The Daily Beast, and Twatter...but I don't think she should have her article deleted either.
Entire discussion is ridiculous... Thegreatmuffinman (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This account is an WP:SPA.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree a good chunk of sources were sourced from Russia/unreliable outlets so should have been removed, but yeah there clearly are enough reliable sources so the article should be at most fixed not deleted. We should not apply a higher standard to this article than the vast majority of others. JSwift49 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: mIght have a pass at AUTHOR, but the reviews are flimsy and we'd need more than those for sourcing. I still don't think we have enough in RS for notability, Daily Beast and Newsweek are depreciated. TF1 isn't strictly about Lira. Rest are sourced to Sputnik or in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a WIRED article that stated one of his novels' movie rights had been bought by Miramax, not sure if helps but put it in. JSwift49 17:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they deprecated? They both seem to be labeled "with additional considerations" (Newsweek reliable on "on a case-by-case basis" post-2013, the Daily Beast for being biased towards left-wing positions) on the list. Neither are listed as deprecated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are not deprecated. WP:DAILYBEAST is "no consensus", and WP:NEWSWEEK is "evaluate on a case-by-case basis". Jfire (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He certainly does not pass WP:AUTHOR: no, he is not regarded as an important figure by his peers or successors; his books being reviewed is not really a proof. However, he might pass our general criteria as someone who appears in multiple sources. But most of these sources are weak, as noted, for example, by Oaktree just above and some others. He also does not appear as anyone of significance other than promoting a ridiculous misinformation and being arrested. And the history of creation and deletion of the previous versions of this page seems to indicate at promotion. Hence, I am leaning toward "delete", although have no strong opinion (he does appear in multiple sources after all). My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a source review is needed here at least for the first block which may settle it. I'll do it tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 16:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply listing the sources, as some people do above on this page, is not enough. One should check what they say about the subject. For example, I noticed a NYT article. It says "Alex Jones, the American conspiracy theorist who often spreads lies on his Infowars platform, during his online show on Monday suggested that Ukraine would detonate a dirty bomb within its borders and then blame Russia as “a pretext to bring NATO fully into the conflict” and start World War III. “My analysis is, about 90 percent at this point, that there’s going to be full-on public war with Russia, and at least a tactical nuclear war in Europe,” ... And on YouTube, Gonzalo Lira, an American commentator who lives in Ukraine, said that “all the evidence” pointed to a “deliberate provocation that is being staged by the Americans.”. Such mention does count as a citation of Lira, but it says little of substance beyond noticing that Lira repeated/supported the claim by Alex Jones who is indeed a notable conspiracy theorist. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gonzalo is notable person, his view were supressed and yet his views reached tens of millions worldwide. Some parts of the article do not base the claim on primary sources. Reviewing the telegram and subsequent youtube does not prove doxxing of other journalist during the initial phases of invasion of Russian forces. Also the claim that he did sent the positions of the troops to tiktok is not that easy to believe as he did not have tiktok channel and there is no evidence of that, there are points in the article that are not provable altough the fact that he was prosecuted in the ukraine remains important. For definition of doxxing I am using [1] maybe going through all the evidence of the ideas of the author he presented [2] and making the article more detailed would certainly improve the quality and lower the biased citations that stand contrary to the alredy established definition on wikipedia e.g. the doxing article Krypto Švejk (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Note the recent Arbcom request for modification of the sourcing expectations for the Antisemitism in Poland topic area. I advocated extending it to the Holocaust in Lithuania as they did but also to eastern Europe in general, which seemed to get some support, except that it's difficult to enunciate a standard for the war in Ukraine in particular beyond saying (me) that it is a HUGE problem. For which this article is a poster child. Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lira is notable by the sheer amount of literature about his passing, though he was quite famous even before. There are many newspaper publications about him from 2022 and earlier. Tiphareth (talk) Tiphareth (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
  2. ^ https://t.me/realCRP
How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine." There is controversy about Lira going way back to alleged sexual predation at Dartmouth. Lira is whatever you want him to be depending on your worldview. He is a journalist to some, a fraudster, an opportunist, a propagandist, an economist, a writer, film maker, a narcissistic opportunist, a pro-Russian shill, or a hero. How do you write an article about this human chameleon in a way that is accurate and balanced. 73.27.57.206 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This editor is a WP:SPA, who has no understanding of the WP policies. scope_creepTalk 01:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dick. 73.27.57.206 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you've just proven the point, we don't name call here please. Oaktree b (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate all the good faith feedback and discussion here, I’ve come to agree the original article needed improvement and my submitting it was premature. However I and other editors have now worked on it quite a bit so I’d like to request any decision be taken with these changes in mind. I more than ever believe the article adequately demonstrates notability (has a good number of reliable sources, and tons of articles on Wikipedia are of far less significant people), so it should not be deleted, especially given how different the previous four AfD submissions were. JSwift49 03:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The request for deletion is clearly a politically-motivated attempt to "memory-hole" relevant historical events and a public figure, however minor or unpopular, who has actively contributed in SIGNIFICANT measure to reporting and discussion of events leading up to and during the Ukrainian/Russian conflict from 2014-2023. The fact that he was a dissenting voice outside the MSM makes his reporting more relevant, not less so. Moreover, as the manner of his incarceration and death, foretold by Lira himself at the end of July, 2023, possibly or even likely involves crimes and human rights violations by both Ukrainian and US authorities, the request to delete, particularly at this time, is a clear attempt to hide the circumstances of his death and to censor dissent; to deny the public ready access to significant factual historical information. The page should not only be retained, but expanded, improved and ELEVATED in significance, at least until the Ukrainian conflict is settled. Whoever requested deletion, particularly at this moment when the circumstances of his death are still an active topic of discussion in the public realm, should probably have their own significance and moral integrity questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:10AE:10:9E66:15A7:B596:232B:39FB (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:SPA scope_creepTalk 08:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Single purpose account' everyone knows what you are doing now. You are not arguing in good faith and cannot address any of the points as your sealioning trolling has been called out.
Fact is, you don't need an account to edit a lot of Wikipedia articles.
Where is your scrutiny towards the sources of the Ashton-Cirollo article?
Like I said already that article is all Daily Beast, Twatter, Fox News Las Vegas, and LGBT tabloid magazines. Their article still should not be deleted, but I don't see the usual suspects on here trying to brigade delete this article doing the same there...
Also, your opinion doesn't matter if you think GL is distasteful, many people find Scott Ritter distasteful (convicted sex offender), does that mean that they should not have a Wikipedia article?
Cause if that is the case then theirs should be deleted too. Fact is, are they notable? Yes, people can be notable by being infamous. Thegreatmuffinman (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC) — Thegreatmuffinman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is a WP:SPA. Seems to be off-wiki canvassing. scope_creepTalk 12:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a fellow editor, it is important to use non-confrontational wording in discussions, as hostile wording rarely leads to resolution. My recommendation is to edit your comment for tone. Ca talk to me! 12:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing confrontational about that? SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, of course Tatrsky is a lot more notable, and not only his assassination, but even women used as patsy [21] is probably notable enough to have her page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is honestly a little concerning to read this discussion, as someone who loves wikipedia and sees it as in invaluable resource that sincerely aims for neutrality. this lira guy is clearly reprehensible, but the following and interest he generated over a long period justifies an article here. furthermore, the article could be quite a bit better, but was still valuable for what wilipedia is always valuable for to me - an easily readable overview of a subject with plenty of links to verify and go deeper. i am not sure what would make this article a nominee for deletion instead of just edits without thinking a lot of the editors are making disingenuous arguments because they simply find the subject matter distasteful. keep wiki neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.169.134 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

  • Comment Lets examine the two blocks of sources + plus the above sources + chilean newspaper list on Lira to settle this once and for all.
Reference
Number
 URL Independent Reliable
 Significant WP:GNG Notes
1 [28] Yes No No No Its likely non-rs.
2 [29] No Yes No No WP:PRIMARY. Self-published opinion piece.
3 [30] Yes Yes No No Non-RS. Database generated profile.
4 [31] No Yes No No It is an interview. WP:PRIMARY.
5 [32] Yes Yes No No Its a passing mention, in reaction to another story.
6 [33] Yes Yes No No Its a quote, a passing mention.
7 [34] Yes No No No Seems to be some question of propagating a lie about a non-existant video. So article is not a reliable source, even though Daily Beast is generally considered to be reliable.
8 [35] Yes Yes No No Single para is passing mention.
9 [36] Yes No No No Short para, taken from Twitter. Its non-rs.
10 [37] No No No No Report taken a podcast. Staff report, no byline Profile effectively. Non-RS.
11 [38] Yes No No No National news agency of Ukraine. Article built from Twitter and Youtube. "The material was prepared by the editorial office of the Center for Strategic Communications and Information Security". No byline. Likely Non-rs
12 [39] Yes
13 [40] No No No No Uses Twitter as a source to build the article. Bylined article "Who Is Gonzalo Lira?"
14 [41] Yes Yes No No Its a routine annoucement of death and only 6 lines long. Probably satisfies WP:V for his death but not a particularly decent ref.
15 [42] Yes Yes No No Same press-release as a reference 14, confirming he died. It is 8 lines. There is no analysis, in fact there is nothing except he died of pneumonia. Its not significant.
16 [43] Yes Yes Yes Yes These library logins dialogs per consensus are considered non-rs as they fail WP:V. Article about his book advance. Here it is: [44]
17 [45] Yes Yes No No Same death annoucement as Ref 15. Same ref as 14
18 Yes Yes A recent RFC found it to be a paper of record. So reliable.
19 [46] Yes Yes No No Two paragraphs, not significant.
20 [47] No No No No Event listing for bookstore discussion. Its is non-rs.
21 [48] Yes Yes No No Incididental para with name mention (passing mention) about his book "Counterparts" getting picked up. Context on Stacy Creamer and Kathleen J. Reichs. Two para's. Satisfies WP:V.
22 [49] Yes No No No Event listing again, for some reason. Completely non-rs. Why is that even in the article?
23 [50] Yes 
scope_creepTalk 12:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment German reader here again, I find this evaluation a bit odd.
1. "Its likely non-rs." Wouldn't a reason here be warranted? Why is it "likely non-rs"?
5. "Its a passing mention, in reaction to another story." The name "Lira" is mentioned 8 times throughout the article in 7 different paragraphs. GPT-3.5 summarizes the article as follows: "Gonzalo Lira's blog post on Business Insider accused Paul Krugman of suggesting war as a fiscal solution to the economy, which was widely criticized and labeled as "totally batshit insane" by economists. Business Insider eventually pulled the post, acknowledging that it distorted Krugman's actual stance. Krugman responded, reaffirming his Keynesian position on government spending. The incident tarnished both Lira and Business Insider's reputation." Presenting this as a "passing mention" seems quite inaccurate.
7. "Seems to be some question of propagating a lie about a non-existant video." This is a 4,000 words article about Lira. GPT-3.5 summary: "Gonzalo Lira, a former manosphere YouTuber known as Coach Red Pill, has shifted his content from relationship advice to pro-Russian commentary on the Ukraine conflict. Presenting himself as an objective observer, Lira makes wild claims against Ukrainian President Zelensky, supports Russian narratives, and spreads debunked conspiracy theories. Despite gaining followers, experts dismiss his views as nonsense, and some suspect he may be indirectly compensated by Russia. Lira's transformation aligns with broader trends in the manosphere's entanglement with far-right networks and their alignment with pro-Russian sentiments. Critics suggest his pivot may be driven by a desire to remain relevant amid growing deplatforming concerns in the manosphere." Claiming the text is merely about "a non-existant video" seems highly inaccurate.
8. "Single para is passing mention." He's mentioned in two paragraphs, not one.
9. "Short para, taken from Twitter. Its non-rs." The text consists of 5 paragraphs. The name "Lira" is mentioned 5 times in 4 paragraphs and 10 times in total.
11. "Article built from Twitter and Youtube." The first paragraph is about Tucker Carlson and his claims about Lira. So this statement seems already inaccurate.
I know we are supposed to "assume good faith", but these distortions appear a little too consistent and severe to be accidental misreadings. So I can only assume some kind of agenda at work here. 2A01:C23:9115:E200:74D2:8AB5:E1C:AC12 (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a WP:SPA scope_creepTalk 16:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning what xyz person said in a blog post doesn't help establish notability. Even being mentioned in TWO paragraphs isn't helping. Please don't use ChatGPT to summarize articles either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
"Mentioning what xyz person said in a blog post doesn't help establish notability."
I never claimed that it did. Pointing out that Lira is mentioned 8 times in 7 different paragraphs and is at the subject's center contradicts the claim of "a passing mention".
"Even being mentioned in TWO paragraphs isn't helping."
I never claimed that it helps establishing notability. Pointing out that Lira is mentioned in two paragraphs contradicts the claim that he is mentioned in one paragraph. I intended to correct a false claim, indicating a general pattern of distortion.
"Please don't use ChatGPT to summarize articles either."
It provides an approximate overview of a text's content by a neutral third party. If you are aware of evidence showing that GPT-3.5 is generally less reliable than humans in generating summaries, please provide references to the relevant scientific literature. 2A01:C22:9142:6A00:C26:1006:4237:8B7 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discussing the sources. If they don't establish notability, there is no point discussing them. Chat GPT is an unreliable source per wikipedia. So none of the sources discussed are useful, no matter how many times they mention Lira is the conclusion to be drawn. If you've so much as agreed the sources don't help notability, I can't see what the issue is. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's a non-passing mention, the source isn't reliable, so it shouldn't matter how it is used. I can't see that any of these sources discussed are helpful in proving notability here to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism is that the source analysis misrepresents the sources. For example, claiming that reference number 5 (Salon) constitutes "a passing mention" seems false, considering that Lira is mentioned 8 times in 7 paragraphs and is at the center of the subject. This seems also the case for reference number 7 (The Daily Beast). I'm not sure how I can make this clearer. As for the sources' reliability, I am reading here that "there is no consensus on the reliability of Salon" and that "there is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast." According to the source analysis the "Daily Beast is generally considered to be reliable." 2A01:C22:9142:6A00:C26:1006:4237:8B7 (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep, Some things about your evaluation don't make sense to me:
4: While the article is an interview, it also contains five paragraphs of the reporter writing about Lira before the interview itself. So that is secondary coverage as well as primary. Major Chilean newspaper, WP:GNG.
5: The article is about Lira's op-ed and the fallout from it, not merely a 'passing mention'. Salon isn't considered unreliable according to the "Perennial source" list. Why couldn't it contribute to WP:GNG?
7: I agree with the above commenter, reducing it to be about a 'non-existing video' question is not a summary of the article's contents, the article is much broader in scope. Why not WP:GNG?
9: The article is not merely "sourced from Twitter". It is sourced from the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in which they state that Lira is missing and that they are searching for him, article also states relatives haven't spoken to him (which wasn't from Twitter), the only Twitter sourcing is when they describe Lira's Twitter posts. Given it's a major independent Chilean newspaper, WP:GNG.

Also
11: I understand that it's Ukrainian state news and the Center for Strategic Communications and Information Security wrote their rationale for detaining Lira, but why is that unreliable for merely ascertaining what that rationale was?
13: When Twitter is mentioned in the Newsweek article, it is not taken as fact but rather it reports what people posted on Twitter in context. I'd agree with you if the article was taking what was posted on Twitter as fact, but by your standard, how could reliable sources discuss anything people put on Twitter?

There are also many other sources that in my opinion clearly count towards WP:GNG, including:

There has also been substantial Ukrainian media coverage, including The New Voice of Ukraine [59][60][61][62] and KyivPost [63], paragraphs in NBC/NYT articles, or dedicated coverage in FOX News, The Bulwark, Europa Press, The Week, The Times of India, Berliner Zeitung, though even if we want to exclude or qualify some or all of these sources in the article, the list above should more than suffice for keeping the article on Wikipedia. JSwift49 17:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you can't just say there are sources. If there are produce them Elinruby (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All mentioned are in the article and easily searchable. Regardless the ones I didn't link aren't integral to WP:GNG JSwift49 23:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about the list above???? I have not yet looked at the Chilean sources, so put them aside for a moment. The majority of the English-language sources are dubious at best, and TF1, on a quick reading, seems to say you cannot believe anything at all the man says. This may not be coming across in machine translation, which at last check had trouble with French verb structures for reporting something untrue. You would be well advised however to compare your list to Perennial Sources, since several of those you are citing are declared unreliable there, or reliable only for "culture". That might possibly cover his dating advice on YouTube, maybe, but does not extend to political and military claims, even if they are made by a dating coach. Elinruby (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TF1 is debunking what Musk and Carlson said about Lira, and the fact they covered the controversy at all demonstrates Lira’s notability. NY Daily News, Independent, EFE/Swissinfo are all reliable and dedicated coverage. Insider, Daily Beast, Newsweek are marked as “no consensus”, not unreliable. But even if you exclude all of them the four above plus Chilean/Ukrainian in-depth coverage, book reviews and lesser coverage in other outlets including NBC/NYT clearly satisfy WP:GNG JSwift49 13:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent is questionable. It's green, yes, but check the comments. I've left it alone for now as tag-bombing is discouraging and some other stuff was worse. Also check out the comments about the Daily News. I am starting to think everyone involved in this article needs a contentious topics notification. We don't do tabloids in this topic area. It's not supposed to be about how much you can get away with. Elinruby (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors formed a consensus about The Independent and The New York Daily News being reliable. I am sorry that your opinion on these sources is in the minority but that is life sometimes. JSwift49 19:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source table of these six sources

I've looked at the 6 sources presented above, one good one, rest are partials for helping notability here, I still don't see GNG being met. No changes in my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i would argue the Independent article is reasonably in-depth and doesn't just discuss the Tweets, it discusses the general situation including implications for the White House, and Business Insider also says a lot more. Besides, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Adding some:
NY Daily News: [64]
La Tercera (major Chile newspaper): [65][66][67] (last link should be included as there are several paragraphs written about him before the interview)
More Daily Beast coverage: [68][69]
Europa Press: [70]
New Voice of Ukraine: [71][72][73]
CNN Chile: [74]
KyivPost: [75]
Mala Espina: [76]

Hill TV: [77] (reliable source but video is opinion-y, not sure if this counts as a contributor/how much editorial oversight since these were permanent hosts of the 'Rising' show)
The Bulwark: [78][79] (same thing as Hill, the source is opinion, not sure how much oversight, though I do think it contributes to notability)

I think this combined with all the book reviews, plus the shorter mentions of significance in NBC, NYT, United Press International etc. satisfies it just fine. I could even include TASS' story on Maria Zakharova's response to Lira's death since TASS is considered reliable for quotes from Russian politicians. [80] JSwift49 00:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
El Mercurio [81] Yes newspaper of record, story with byline Yes does not appear to be unreliable in 1996 when article was published Yes Full story about the author, with byline ✔ Yes
The Independent [82] Yes article has byline Yes considered a RS ~ half page, mostly about the twitter exchanges ~ Partial
Business Insider [83] Yes has a byline ~ no consensus on reliability of the source ~ discusses the twitter exchange ~ Partial
EFE vis Swissinfo [84] Yes EFE is along the lines of AP Yes no bylines, but do have author's initials at the bottom ~ perhaps 6 paragraphs about Lira, partially helping ~ Partial
TF1 [85] Yes French news network, story has byline Yes generally considered reliable ~ talks about his detention and points out falsehoods in the news stories ~ Partial
Daily Beast [86] Yes has byline ~ average source per RS guidelines ~ short article, talks aobut his death ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The problem with posting lots of these links in many of them either are of significant e.g. death notices, or only generarted because of the interest of Musk and Carlson. Other like Daily Beast are non-rs. Business Insider is absolute junk, its a trade journal and the reason they're printing is because of Musk. Nothing else and its affiliate news. You would never use for a WP:BLP. Its not dedicated stories. They are copied from elsewhere. We will go through them all. scope_creepTalk 18:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An issue here is it seems to me you misrepresented many of the sources you did review.

Furthermore Daily Beast is described as 'no consensus', you yourself say above in your review "Daily Beast is generally considered to be reliable", and the Business Insider article in fact wasn't copied from elsewhere. Both of those articles as well as the other links are in fact stories centered around Lira. JSwift49 18:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately billionaires and their interests often determine what gets covered in the media. It happens even at the best news organizations. Thriley (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the WP:ARS here to do a pile on like you have done in the past, I will revert and take the whole the lot of you to WP:ANI. scope_creepTalk 17:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith and comment not on a person but their sources found. No one has ever done a "pile". Sometimes people show up and find sources and comment on them, sometimes not. Dream Focus 18:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea right. We will see if any other of the ARS cronies turn up. scope_creepTalk 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors from ARS would probably be more helpful than IPs right now. Thriley (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, it's just an AfD. You're not helping your case by being openly hostile. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't go through all that hassle last year so please curb the advice, until you know what your talking about. scope_creepTalk 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scope, that was me being polite. Threatening people into not participating is a gross violation of AfD policy, not to mention what you did with Counterparts (novel) is obvious retaliation. From WP:ICA and WP:AGF to WP:HA; that threat could even be seen as a type of WP:CANVASING (If nothing else, it derails normal consensus building). If ARS gets inappropriately involved, then we'll deal with it and you'll have my support the whole way through ANI, but right now they're not and you're immediately calling them bad faith actors to poison the well. I repeat, calm down. An AfD isn't worth making enemies over. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 13:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SCMP is an opinion piece, so not helpful in determining reliability. I've explained the rest already, so no need to go over them again. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll finish the source analysis on Saturday. There is other problems with this article which haven't been addressed in this Afd, which have now just came to light. scope_creepTalk 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourcing comment: Many of the editors above seem completely unfamiliar with the concept of a reliable source: Twitter and cough TASS are never reliable ever, Newsweek has not been reliable since 2013, and the list of perennial sources (basically an FAQ, see WP:RSN) says Business Insider might be reliable for popular culture, which would not include making a dating coach out to be Nelson Mandela. The Cypriot news source looks sketchy also. Elinruby (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've thrown one together (see above), it helps as it's a concise view, but still doesn't change my opinion, meaning I'm still not seeing notability as having been met here for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is perhaps a story about his death while in detention, but there isn't much strictly about the event, and what we have is mostly fact-checking of the narrative around him. Most are circular references about the person. I can't see notability at this time, I don't think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it important to include all the reviews of his work from the 90s and 2000s- they contribute towards GNG. Thriley (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they do, but no one has put forward enough extensive and RS to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I follow. The reviews are now in the article. Thriley (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not valid as sources for a review ref. They are trade journals that produce a profile for every book that comes out, that starts to sell. They are junk refs and will need come out. Putting them in, when they are known to be crap sources is really poor editing behaviour. That is disruptive editing. They are never used to prove WP:NAUTHOR, ever. scope_creepTalk 23:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Kirkus and Publishers weekly? I use them all the time. Perfectly acceptable sources to demonstrate he was major author. They aren’t paid promotion- I’ve seen plenty of negative PW reviews. There’s also other reviews too in major newspapers. Thriley (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never use publishers weekly. Its not reliable and never has been. The Kirkus ref is a better but there is no author information and that makes it problematic. It is another indication of lack of presence. WP:THREE genuine reviews would do it? scope_creepTalk 23:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from PW and Kirkus, there’s newspaper reviews. Thriley (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is an essay and the guy who created it said people kept misusing it. His personal essay says he isn't going to read through a dozen sources, three are enough to convince him.
For notability, two is enough. WP:GNG clearly states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Multiple means more than one, so two is fine.
Publishers Weekly has always been a reliable source. I have placed it in many articles over the years. all past discussions about it that I am aware of, have determined it counts as a reliable source. They are often quoted along with other reliable sources at Amazon, Apple [87], and other places that sell the books, or even libraries that mention them [88]. They are also found inside the book or on the cover quoted with other notable reviewers. [89]
You were called out by another editor for being "openly hostile" in your interactions with me above, then you moved a perfectly acceptable article I created for a book Gonzalo Lira wrote, into draft space. draft:Counterparts_(novel) Will someone else look it over and tell me if you believe it should've been moved there? The article clearly states the guy was given a million dollar advance for the book, and list two reliable sources reviewing it. Dream Focus 01:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning Counterparts. Moved back to Main. Added 3 sources, identified by User:Ficaia below. Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A number of sourcing criticms are rooted in assertions around editorial intent. This is irrelevant. We can only assess the actual text of a source. Furthermore, if, for example, the New York Times reports on a debate on Twitter/X or postings to YouTube, just because we do not accept those inital sources as reliable due to their self-publishing status, there is no "fruit of the poison tree" principle that per se discounts the NYT's coverage of those postings. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Given the number of reliable sources covering both him and his work, he passes general notability guidelines with flying colors. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be substantial news coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, as pointed out by others. There were also reviews of his first novel in 1998: 1, 2, 3. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 40,000 readers have visited this biography in the last 30 days. I think it's good that such people have an encylopedic, neutral, reliable source of information. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was made at 21:38, 14 January 2024‎. 47,325 views so far. Five days not thirty, so even more impressive. Dream Focus 19:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This man is notable historically, not just a news cycle. He is Featured on Google, YouTube, and major news sources, and not for just one event but a series of instances. Some of the early "Delete" pushers appear to be POV biased (that just came here to push against this article rather than a legitimately neutral Wikipedia purpose). I myself found out about this AFD after searching for this article, not before. I didn't even know it was up for "Deletion".Ryoung122 21:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of coverage both of his exploits in Ukraine and of his earlier career. Btw the previous AfDs weren't unanimous. Alaexis¿question? 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was a weak delete in a previous AfD. There was a bit of coverage, but not enough. The material since his death takes it over the threshold, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No grounds for even nominating this for deletion. It made sense to nominate it in c. April 2022, not anymore. The fact that you don't like a subject so much you want to even erase any trace of it on the internet cannot be grounds for deletion on Wikipedia. Major coverage worldwide internationally and not just English but Spanish, Russian, Ukrainian. I bet thousands were googling his name even before his death. The guy was mentioned by several prominent figures even prior to his death, and again, in many languages not just English. It is extremely rare --maybe even unprecedented-- that a US expat gets arrested/murdered abroad for expressing some political views ont the internet and just that. If some pro-Ukrainian outlets hearsay accusations are to be taken seriously, i.e. he was filming military installations for Russia, then that makes him even more notable as a 21st century US spy for Russia, which is even more rare & notable. --Yabroq (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel it's necessary after reading the most recent wave of "keep" votes to remind everyone that whether or not we personally think Lira was a particularly notable or historical individual is not relevant to whether he gets an article on Wikipedia. What matters is whether WP:RS support that conclusion. So far, I have only seen tabloids, weird, obscure newspapers, and non-RS like Fox News, TASS, and various sources associated with governments friendly to Russia used on the article. I can't judge the Spanish language sources as well as the English language ones but I would surprised if it wasn't the same story there. I realize that a lot of people feel strongly that he deserves an article, but unless you can get a good news source to actually cover him, a source like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, all of this talk of how there are tons of sources about him and how he was mentioned by famous right-wing figure X is just a load of hot air.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, this is turning into a WP:SNOW that should've never been AfD'ed. There's just too much coverage and your assessment of So far, I have only seen tabloids, weird, obscure newspapers, and non-RS like Fox News, TASS, and various sources associated with governments friendly to Russia used on the article is demonstrably false and without any merit worth considering further. Heck, he's got two books on Wikipedia now (Counterparts (novel) and Acrobat (novel)). We've debate the sourcing to death at this point and the consensus is becoming clear that he meets WP:NOTE; maybe not GA level sourcing, but that's not AfD's problem. He's got 64 sources worth of coverage and about a dozen of which fall squarely in WP:RS. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS to get a better idea of what does and does not qualify as WP:RS. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this page is probably going to be kept, the pages about his novels should deffinitely be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “So far, I have only seen tabloids, weird, obscure newspapers, and non-RS like Fox News, TASS, and various sources associated with governments friendly to Russia used on the article.”
    Have you not looked at the article in its present form? Demonstrably false comment. JSwift49 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, it seems that the article contains several important and reliable sources. Mhorg (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A clear strong keep, for all the reasons given by senior editors here, meets WP:NOTE on every level. And that he is dead does not mean he will not be continued to be referenced by notable sources, the evidence is that it has even increased that, given that his death was reported across the world, and by global sources. So, a strong keep, and let's now work together to get the article to where it needs to be, in terms of Wikipedia standards. Luganchanka (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gonzalo Lira has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events, as Jfire has so aptly demonstrated. When also acknowledging the 1996 profile that was written about him by a WP:NEWSORG, it's quite clear that he passes WP:NBASIC while avoiding WP:1E concerns.
    With respect to the arguments for deletion, I've read through them, and I don't find them persuasive in the least. Scope Creep's table above was interesting, but I disagree enough that I'm inclined to keep here. I'd be a bit more sympathetic towards deletion if his only activity were getting jailed in Ukraine and dying in prison, but such a case doesn't reflect the reality of the sourcing situation here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you keep this bio of an obscure red-piller blogger, in a few years you will just have to delete it anyway. →StaniStani 01:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Crothall

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

No WP:INDEPENDENT sources apart from some small mentions? Seems to fail WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 01:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Juergensen

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

A lot of WP:ORIGINAL done here. None of the sources are WP:RELIABLE. TLA (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Kevin Juergensen, and I've now been contacted by people who want me to pay them money to keep this wikipedia page going, which means it is some sort of scam. Everything on this page is accurate, and many things without sources as per Wikipedia Guidelines are NOT listed on it for that reason. I did not create this page, nor did I pay someone to create this page. I have some prominence in the field of scuba diving and life support, and as such someone created this page ages ago. I would offer to improve the page, but that seems narcissistic, which means maybe you guys will just delete it, which seems odd for a repository of human knowledge. If AfD becomes weaponized, then it seems to me that Wikipedia will shrink significantly as who has the energy to fight that? I'm not going to pay the scammer to try and keep this page going, and I've reported this to the Wikipedia folks via the method they describe in the AfD scam page. Anyway, thank you for listening. 204.197.153.14 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The page has been around since 2011. If the person wasn't notable, they could simply have removed the page right from the start. Why nominate this page for deletion now? Looking at the comment, someone emailed him asking for money in return for keeping the page. This makes me wonder if some editors would randomly nominate a page for deletion, hoping to scam the person on the page. Iamsuperingbo (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, we'll edit your article for free. Just ask for help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Lack of much of any sourcing in RS. This isn't a RS [90] and it's about all I find for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, so the guy masquerading as a "Senior Wikipedia Administrator" by the name of "Brendan Conway" has been sending me e-mails 1-2 times a day asking me to send him $1499 (interesting figure) to "keep your Wikipedia page". You folks ought to recognize an organized scam when you see one. Now, this page is "relisted" and the very same guy just sent me another e-mail saying "I'd like to tell you that your page has been relisted for deletion for the second time." Oh wow. What a shocker. Either it's a bot that is watching this page, or it is actually someone who is nominating it for a AfD. In any event, I'm afraid Wikipedia is going to lose all relevance once these types of people realize the scam they can run. I love Wikipedia, but this kind of stuff is bound to ruin it. 204.197.153.14 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're well aware of the scam, and I can promise you my relist was simply the seven day ticker rather than any collaboration with the scammer. You can either contact paid-en-wpwikipedia.org as directed or ignore the emails. The community, not a scammer, will decide whether your article meets the requirements for an article. Star Mississippi 13:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, the scammer is just some opportunist who likely keeps tabs on AfDs for people and organizations. That an article has been around for some time is not a valid reason for keeping. At the end of the day, the sourcing needed to pass WP:GNG just isn't there. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Mehta

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

I see a WP:COI here. No references at all; article in the Times is only a mention due to his role at HSBC, not WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or return to draft status) as this only has one real source and most of the long article is completely unsupported with citations. Notability is at least plausible, if borderline, so improving it as a draft is also an option. WilsonP NYC (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Normally I'd relist but given volume of noms by this editor and the keep thoroughly refuting the why, I don't think it's needed here. Star Mississippi 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strait Talk

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

Fails WP:GNG as per WP:RSSM. TLA (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Song, Bingzhong 宋秉忠 (2017-11-16). "美批羊皮 海峽尋新論壇染反中色彩" [U.S. approves sheepskin, Strait Talk dyed with anti-Chinese colors]. Commercial Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

      The article notes: "「海峽尋新論壇」是由美國華裔大學生林柏瀚（Johnny Lin）於2005年在布朗大學創立，接受美國和平研究所資助；2011年4月起，「海峽尋新論壇」正式在香港設立「海峽尋新香港論壇」（Strait Talk Hong Kong），並且固定每年4月在香港大學舉辦，邀請中國大陸、台灣、港澳三方代表參加。"

      From Google Translate: ""Strait Talk" was founded by Johnny Lin, a Chinese-American college student at Brown University in 2005, and received funding from the United States Institute of Peace. Since April 2011, "Strait Talk" has officially established the "Strait Talk" in Hong Kong. "New Hong Kong Forum" (Strait Talk Hong Kong) is held regularly at the University of Hong Kong in April every year, inviting representatives from mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao to participate."

    2. Chung, Chenfang 锺辰芳 (2023-11-07). "从人性化角度化解台海冲突 "海峡寻新"提供两岸年轻人对话平台" [Resolving conflicts across the Taiwan Strait from a humanistic perspective. "Strait Talk" provides a platform for dialogue between young people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait] (in Chinese). Voice of America. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

      The article notes: "曾任联合国高级调停顾问的美国俄亥俄州肯特(Kent)州立大学和平与冲突研究院副教授新井立志(Tatsushi Arai)博士，在2005年创立了“海峡寻新”(Strait Talk)的跨海峡两岸新世代对话，希望透过在美国大学就读的来自中国、台湾和美国华裔青年新世代，以“互动式冲突解决”(Interactive Conflict Resolution)对话，为台海两岸关系的和缓寻求人性化的冲突解决途径。... “海峡寻新”最早是在美国布朗大学举行，后来扩展到华盛顿的乔治华盛顿大学、加拿大阿尔伯塔大学、加州的伯克利大学和台北的校园，""

      From Google Translate: "Dr. Tatsushi Arai, an associate professor at the School of Peace and Conflict Studies at Kent State University in Ohio, who was a senior United Nations mediation consultant, founded the cross-strait cross-strait new generation "Strait Talk" in 2005. The dialogue hopes to use "Interactive Conflict Resolution" dialogue among the new generation of young people from China, Taiwan and Chinese Americans studying in American universities to seek humane conflict resolution methods for the easing of cross-strait relations across the Taiwan Strait. ... "Searching for Innovation across the Straits" was first held at Brown University in the United States, and later expanded to campuses at George Washington University in Washington, the University of Alberta in Canada, the University of Berkeley in California, and Taipei,""

    3. Chen, Yunpu 陳運璞 (2010-04-06). "舊金山大學 話美中台三角關係 高棣民：到中國學中文成趨勢 李以安：兩岸將越來越和平" [University of San Francisco: Talking about the triangular relationship between the United States, China and Taiwan]. World Journal (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "柏克萊大學教授高棣民（Thomas B. Gold）特別介紹這個非政府組織「海峽尋新」（Strait Talk），在美東已成立五年，在美西是第二年展開活動。這個組織由台灣出生的林柏翰發起，如今每年在美東布朗大學和美西柏克萊加大等地舉辦活動。"

      From Google Translate: "Thomas B. Gold, a professor at the University of Berkeley, specially introduced this non-governmental organization "Strait Talk" (Strait Talk), which has been established for five years in the eastern United States and is in its second year of activities in the western United States. This organisation was founded by Lin Bohan, who was born in Taiwan, and now holds events every year at Brown University East and the University of California, Berkeley."

    4. "布朗海峽論壇開講" [Brown Strait Talk starts]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2006-11-03.

      The article notes: "由布朗大學(Brown University)學生舉辦的海峽尋新論壇(The Strait Talk Symposium)即日起至5日在該校內舉行。邀請中美台三地的專家探討兩岸關係未來的發展。"

      From Google Translate: "The Strait Talk Symposium, organized by Brown University students, will be held on the campus from now until the 5th. Experts from China, the United States and Taiwan are invited to discuss the future development of cross-strait relations."

    5. 通过新一代人、平台和项目建立中美互信（中英文对照） [Building US.-China trust Through Next Generation People, Platforms, and Programs (in Chinese and English)] (in Chinese). Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press. 2014. p. 36. ISBN 978-7-5097-6446-6. Retrieved 2024-01-17 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Another model to highlight is a student-created enterprise. Students at Brown University started Strait Talk in 2005. It now has a second base in the San Francisco Bay Area. Each year, the student organizing committees plan a week-long symposium and select fifteen student delegates from Taiwan, China, and the U.S. to participate. The students engage in conflict resolution training, hear from regional specialists, and develop a consensus report on dispute resolution and cooperation. The report is submitted to leaders from the three regions."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Strait Talk (traditional Chinese: 海峽尋新; simplified Chinese: 海峡寻新) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Darkest Days. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes It Hurts

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

Non notable song. I wanted to at least have the discussion about this rejected PROD. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Solis

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

No WP:SIGCOV in WP:INDEPENDENT sources, whilst being WP:PROMO. TLA (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Yves Bouguet

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBFK-LP

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 15:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Houts

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

Fails WP:GNG. Small voice acting roles and some behind the scenes work. Was created and kept almost 20 years ago, when Wikipedia was a very different place. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing meaningful. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find nothing to support the accolades in the article. The only place I can find him mentioned is in IMDB where he is mainly listed as "additional crew" on a number of television shows. He also did some voice work, as listed there. But I didn't find sources about him, and definitely nothing that would support the current article. I did search the LA Times archive which is about as good as I can get for entertainment news, and the general ebsco stuff. Lamona (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LeverX

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced to lists of system integrators, SAP vendors, and trivial coverage of the company moving to Miami. ~ A412 talk! 19:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Good coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability and the reference from American City Business Journals is a profile provided by the company. Hard to miss as it even says it is "in their own words". Fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 21:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The one "weak keep" actually makes a case for deletion ("inadequate sourcing"). Sandstein 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KNLA-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Found some coverage in [[91]]. Let'srun (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonna be an odd one here. KNLA and KNET go together; they channel share and have been associated for 20+ years. There is one other article on them, "Success Story: Low-Power Target on Hispanics - World TV's Four Outlets Play to Central Americans in Los Angeles Market" (TelevisionWeek 4/28/03), but it provides little useful content other than to say KNET was religious and KNLA was home shopping. The programming on these stations now is not likely to stay: its owner is selling it to Daystar in a deal filed just last week. Daystar would probably replace all the existing programming on this mux. Six months from now, there'd be an obvious redirect target, the Daystar station list. Right now, I'm not sure. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to Sammi Brie: So, if it does go to Daystar, KOCE-TV doesn't have to air it anymore, freeing up one of its subchannels for other programming. That could end the conflict between Daystar and KOCE... Interesting. Mer764Wiki (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Afflicted (American band)

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

Already found no evidence of notability even through online archives that had plenty of useless results, so the "offline search required" feels more like a formality and an assumption than an entirely reasonable PROD rejection, but here we are. This band has no appearance of connection to even a notable record label so I sincerely doubt they were getting placements in anything other than random fanzines which wouldn't be considered reliable sources. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Rough consensus is that the location is not notable, but the power plant or company may be. The article has only one sentence about the power plant, which may help people in writing an article about it instead:

"The Farad Hydroelectric Plant was built alongside the Truckee River at 39.4196304°N 120.0318647°W 3 by the Sierra Pacific Power Company in 1899. [Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Clovis, Calif.: Word Dancer Press. p. 528. ISBN 1-884995-14-4.] 4" Sandstein 10:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farad, California

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

This was prodded in December 2023 and then refunded January 9 but the stub was not improved to show notability. The subject fails WP:GEOLAND, GNIS does not establish notability; the references are trivial mentions or broken links. This appears to have just been a railway point beside the hydroelectric station; WP:BEFORE does not uncover information we can use to write an article. Also, it does not appear on a map. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for: 
"Truckee River General Electric"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
  • The article is wrong anyway. The power plant was built by the Truckee River General Electric company in 1899, 10 years before the Sierra Pacific Power Company was invented. It seems very silly that Wikipedia has an article claiming that a hydroelectric power plant and gaging station is a "former settlement". It is even siller when even a cursory search reveals that the clearly notable subject is the redlinked one. Uncle G (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not only all the above, but the topos reveal that the location given is that of the gauging station, except on the wrong side of the river. I can get neither Durham nor Gudde to show up in a search, so I can't see what the placename books might have said about this spot, but the closest I come to it as a place is that all the listings of water/powerplants assume that it's named after a place called "Farad" instead of being that place. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No mention of the place in the local papers at all. A notable place would be have mentions in it's local paper.James.folsom (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Delete or Move to Truckee River General Electric and let it fend for itself.James.folsom (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above editors' findings --Lenticel (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the discussion at User talk:Liz#Recent PROD of Farad,_California where I (as an IP) encouraged the user to go to RFU. Fails NGEOLAND, but appears likely to meet GNG. Mach61 (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • failing geoland and meeting gng is factually not possible. Are you sure you didn't mix those up?James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • D'oh, I meant "it doesn't get special treatment cos it isn't legally recognized but is still notable due to coverage". Anyhow, amend vote to strong keep, the plant has lots of sigcov even in the 21st century [92][93][94]. Mach61 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody is currently trying to deny the notability of the power plant, or at least that is not the goal right now. People want to delete this article because it is titled "Farad, California" as though it was a populated place and it isn't and never was. GNIS just turned it to one when it miss classified the power plant. We could move it to "Farad power plant" and that would be fine provided the claims about it's notability is true. But, it would be just as easy to write that article and delete this one.James.folsom (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The place has its own well-maintained and well-marked exit on Interstate 80. It hosted a group of men in the late 1800s that build and maintained the power plant and the flume/pond/penstock infrastructure that fed it. I'm still trying to find authoritative documentation for this last point. One of its official purposes is as an access point for kayaking on the Truckee river and the Tahoe-Pyramid hiking/biking trail. More info about this is here: https://tahoepyramidtrail.org/

          Here's a clear Google Maps street-view image of the exit and its identifying sign, stating simply, "FARAD [ exit 201 ]":

          https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4204508,-120.0331203,3a,75y,348.89h,87.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snsJK_c2Pam6CGYNG9QbRxg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

          I believe the well-maintained presence of the exit itself and its marker sign identifying the exit as "Farad" indicates its significance/importance.

          I haven't had much time to do in-depth research to find authoritative articles and update the page. I'm a single dad with ADHD and full-time job, trying to juggle my time between a lot of things, but i really do want to try to revive this article and make it useful. I hope these can be taken into consideration when reviewing the utility of the page or the significance of the place it attempts to document, and discussing whether it should stay or go. I also maintain the Farad FB page: https://www.facebook.com/farad.california Erik Schorr (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          • Yes we know... but none of your comments are constructively dealing with the problems of the title or the content errors. It needs to be titled so that is more clear what it is. From your description, It's a former work camp and current recreational area. It's notability as such can be revisited, once the article actually reflects what it is. BTW, if you don't have time to improve the article you can find somebody to do so, if you don't have time for that then you don't have time to care whether it's deleted or not. And Honestly, if you hadn't wasted so much of my time being difficult about this, I might would been willing to move it an work on it some.James.folsom (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm ASD and lack experience and guidance when it comes to wiki discussion etiquette, so I apologize if I came across as difficult. Just hoped to get as much into the message as I could before I forgot. Erik Schorr (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • ASD here too, so I understand. James.folsom (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, I wouldn't worry too much about a possible deletion. I could make a short article called Farad powerhouse, and since it would be different than the current article on Farad, it'd stay up. Mach61 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • Had I not been clear, that this was best? James.folsom (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Or one could write about the notable redlinked subject, since it had more than one powerhouse, and is also what the entire Truckee River General Electric system was named after.

                    Fowler 1923, pp. 834–853, which gives a potted corporate history and the locations and details of the five power plants in the system, is where to start, people. Not Facebook pages, nor Google StreetView. Nor with a lopsided approach that only discusses one powerhouse wholly out of context. Civil engineer Frederick Hall Fowler of the U.S. Forest Service did the heavy lifting on this a century ago. You just need to stop looking at Facebook and WWW searches and street signs, and read proper histories written by experts.

                    Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

                    Thanks Uncle G, level headed as always. Good example of how It's always better when we collaborate. James.folsom (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    Excellent find, sir.
                    Could I ask what sort of thing I would call the area/place next to California Interstate 80, denoted by its own exit named "Farad" (named as such in CalTrans/CADOT's official guide of exits along I-80, [95]https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/exit/f0017912-80.pdf#page=8), with a named road (Mystic Rd) to a maintained parking area, has a hydroelectric power station bearing the Farad name, an access point to Tahoe-Pyramid bikeway, an access point for kayaking and fishing on the Truckee river, and a public spring-fed soaking pool? It's not a park nor rest stop nor a census-designated place, but it's significant in its own right. If it were _only_ an exit meant for access to the power station and nothing else, I wouldn't be here. The name given to this area just seems to be "Farad", and this is how people refer to it. It would seem appropriate to use this name for the article that describes the place that people who visit it are familiar with. It's this name and this description of the place that I wish to document, and not simply a hydroelectric powerhouse. Erik Schorr (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    I can see your point that you don't like the proposed article name. So we need to decide what to call it. The sign is not a permanent feature, and could change so it's not a good guide. So just to understand the perspective of the place I visited it on google streetview. This is a trailhead, not all that uncommon for the signage to be the way it is either. Could we get any consensus for merging with Tahoe–Pyramid_Trail? This what the place is now, and both articles need work. James.folsom (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
references
  • Move to Farad Hydroelectric Plant or similar, which appears pretty crystal clear notable from book and internet searches. Problem is we are trying to identify the notability of a settlement, which is incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 00:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow more thorough discussion on deletion vs move, and potential new titles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whatever Uncle G and Erik think is good; retitle, move, or expand, or basically anything that preserves the existing information and doesn't delete it. jp×g🗯️ 05:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Didn't you read the discussion? It was pointed out most of the info wasn't even correct.
  • Redirect to Tahoe–Pyramid_Trail I've scratched out my vote above. This is my new vote. This place made it into Wikipedia because of a GNIS error. Closer inspection reveals it is simply a freeway exit that was named Farad due to the power plant being there. The purpose of the exit is to provide access to the trail head for the Tahoe-pyramid trail. This preserves the link so that maybe Erikschorr can accept it. This leaves anyone who wants to, able to create the article on the power plants. That subject has little to do with this trailhead anyway.James.folsom (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tahoe–Pyramid_Trail or Delete I actually think it should be deleted. These redirect suggestions are complicated because this is just a GNIS error. THere probably should be articles on the other topics discussed here. But deleting this in no way interferes with any that. One could also redirect it to a list of exits on that highway. But I see no need to do anything other than delete. But those are my redirect preferences if that is the outcome.James.folsom (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies. as a viable ATD with the history preserved should her status change. Star Mississippi 14:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Gaston

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. Failed judicial nominees aren't inherently notable, WP:BIO1E applies. Let'srun (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia:WOMRED, let's see if her nomination regains traction. Wl219 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears that her nomination has been withdrawn at her request. I'd be fine with redirecting this to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the page "Marian Gatson" to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies, as her litigation record and opposition to her nomination are substantive, while the fact she withdrew herself means she's no longer a nominee and not notable enough to merit her own article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Traub

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

Article fails WP:ANYBIO. Subject has not work a well know of significant award. Has not make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the historical record. Article reads a bit like a WP:RESUME. Did WP:BEFORE, was unable to find other sources that would have made this person notable. Checked Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and the Newspaper archives. There is content for some of the things that he did but nothing that would rise to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation to delete the article appears rash; perhaps the page was analyzed before citations were added. There were hundreds of articles and several books that mentioned Doug Traub over the past few decades; most of them are no longer online, however, especially as most major newspapers and magazines now archive stories and make them only available to subscribers. Regardless, several articles from significant news sources like the Associated Press are now cited and archived in the article, and dozens of stories are still online (The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc.) that have not been cited. Please take another look. FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FrequentTraveler100 Sure no problem just point out which references address any of these points WP:ANYBIO. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hitting the sack in a bit, but let me address your issues now before I turn in by pointing out three areas where the Doug Traub article meets the Wikipedia Notability criteria:
Any biography: Doug Traub made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record - the Surf City USA trademark and the attendant publicity are recognised as part of the historical record in California Tourism (the Surf City USA page itself is within the scope of the WikiProject California project) and trademark branding (the Surf City USA trademark is within the scope of the WikiProject Law).
Creative professionals: The person's work has become a significant monument - the Fayetteville History Museum within the restored Cape Fear and Yadkin Valley railway depot that Doug Traub led the charge to rehabilitate after remaining vacant and dilapidated for more than 50 years meets this criteria.
Politicians and judges: Doug Traub is a local political figure who received significant press coverage. This final criteria alone should be more than sufficient to meet the Wikipedia notability criteria.
Thanks for pointing out your issues with this article and providing me with an opportunity to respond to your concerns. Good night! FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Tampa Bay Times is essentially a newspaper of record. Decent local coverage too. I think this meets notability. TLA (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but one source isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, numerous new additional sources have been added for this page, including The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, NBC News/Associated Press and Las Vegas Review-Journal. I am currently making a substantial revision to the Surf City USA page where Traub is also cited which includes links to stories all over the world, including a front page story on the Wall Street Journal. Please do not be too hasty to pull the trigger on this page. I hope to return to it before the end of the week and bolster the citations quite a bit more. Thank you. FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 03:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. World Heavyweight Championship (Pacific Northwest) now redirects to this article, rendering it no longer a viable AtD and there's no indication of further interest in discussing the topic. Star Mississippi 02:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Heavyweight Championship (Los Angeles)

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

I could not establish that this is a notable topic. There is a possible redirect target for World Heavyweight Championship (Pacific Northwest) but this was removed and prod declined. I wouldn't merge as this has no referenced information. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The discussion has ended with the two sides arguing back and forth about sourcing, which suggests neither has the upper hand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles King Van Riper

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO. Somewhat notable in the local sphere, but nothing that really stand out. He was born, held a job, opened his own business/organization, played on local league. in other words, was born, lived life, and died.

Good chunk of this article isn't really about him and what is about him is sourced to local sources. Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Journalism, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete well sourced, but I'm not seeing that he's passed BIO. Seems to hang on the house/building he's built in Martha's Vineyard, based on the infobox below, but I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfies the WP:BASIC guidelines by being supported by numerous reliable published sources, including secondary sources. Notable achievements include: building one of the first homes in Carmel Point in the early 1920s, publisher of plays, one of the first actors at the Forest Theater, and founding member and organizer of the Abalone League. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "being the first to do x in y place during z period is generally not a basis for notability. The discoverer of X-ray is notable, but being the first person ever to install an x-ray machine in a dentist's office in Monterey County, California, USA is NOT. "the first in.." one of the first in" some obscure thing is marketing speak. Graywalls (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To try to say Van Riper is notable for "building one of the first homes in Carmel Point in the early 1920s" is dubious and ahistorical, as it only takes into consideration the wealthy white people who settled there in the 1920s. The Ohlone people lived in that area since the 6th century, then the Spaniards occupied the area during the missionary period, and the Mexican land grant settlers during the Rancho era go back to the late-1700's. He was "one of the first" rich white settlers to build an "English country style " mansion in the 20s, but come on, really? Why are the former inhabitant's histories erased? Besides, there were numerous other houses built by European-American settlers prior to his going back to the mid-ninteenth century. This is puffery and exaggerates his importance and is part of the Carmel walled garden. This claim is ahistorical and lacking in context - and in an understanding of cultural history. Netherzone (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, publishing plays does not make him notable; being "one of the first" actors at a tiny, local community theater in a small town of about 600 people at the time, does not make him notable,; nor does being a "founding member" of a hyper-local softball/baseball team in the same small town. Netherzone (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Satisfies WP:AUTHOR (created a collective body of work) From the 1910s to 1930s Van Riper wrote for various national distributed magazines, including Argosy, Detective Story Magazine, Blue Book, The Popular Magazine, and The Smart Set. On July 17, 1920, Circumstances by Van Riper appeared on the front cover of The Argosy. There are many other examples of WP:NP. Please see improvements to the article that address any concerns. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An author's notability is generally determined by SIGCOV about his work...not whether he wrote things, all authors/writers write, that is simply what they do. It's what other people have written about him, in reviews and in literary criticism that determines his importance. Millions upon millions of writers write stuff. I'll have a look at what you added, but think this may be a stretch. Netherzone (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have listed two reviews for Van Riper's play The Getaway that appeared in Variety one saying "The success of The Getaway is due to the superb work of Miss Heming and a well selected cast." More can be added. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you understand what independent SIGCOV is. Two simple name-checks and a sentence about one of his plays is not SIGCOV. The guideline states as examples:
    • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
    • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
    This is not SIGCOV: Mr. Van Riper does the unusual in his play, in that he starts out with a first act scene of light comedy and, turning abruptly to melodrama, works up to a third act which packs enough excitement to fill a half dozen shows. It is a trivial mention. Netherzone (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Remember, these are guidelines. A guideline is a rule-of-thumb or suggestion.
    • Van Riper has played a major role in creating a significant collective body of work.
    • In addition, such work was the primary subject of multiple reviews.
    • Over 36 citations have been provided, many being from secondary sources by providing reviews and acclamations.
    Greg Henderson (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm shocked at the inclusion of membership in a club using the CLUB YEARBOOK, and he did x in year y at place z using Carmel Art something SCRAPBOOK. It's beside question that these things add nothing to notability but even outside of this, the very presence of trivial contents about every bite of food, every breath of air, every step of life based on scrap book and such is a ridiculous. Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At first glance this looks well sourced, however once the citations are examined it's clear that the article fluffs up this person's importance. The sources consist of a funeral announcement, or are about other people not him, a press release, short mentions, a marriage record, don't mention him at all, are hyper-local, trivia about his house or the local baseball team in a tiny town he played on. Only one good source exists (Martha's Vinyard Magazine) and one from the South Street Seaport where that small museum holds his model boats. Does not pass WP:GNG as there is not enough significant coverage, he also fails WP:NARTIST because having model boats in a museum is not enough to pass the bar. Just because he built a house in Carmel, wrote plays and acted in some of them in a community theater, and was involved in the baseball team of a small town, and made model boats is not enought to pass notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability criteria, local interest piece. Melcous (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Various things could explain why he is notable but especially, I guess, his ship models and the coverage he received for that (some on the page, some not (see GB for 'Van Ry/i/per ship models'): meets WP criterion#2 for notability of people: "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." The page can be trimmed, though.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mushy Yank, Could you please provide some SIGCOV citations proving that his toy wooden boat models are "widely recognized" and part of "the enduring historical record", aside from the museum (primary source) where the donation was received? RE; Criteria #2: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.Thanks. Netherzone (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you are. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 02:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work! Netherzone (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. However, I'm still not persuaded enough to withdraw it. Government agencies and military have suppliers and vendors, so this says he was selected as a government supplier. This is a book specifically focused on miniature ship models. When you focus on a relatively narrow topic, the only way is to go deeply into it. How do you feel about it? Graywalls (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not, to my way of thinking, establish his notability, nor will I be changing my !vote, but I appreciate the effort. Netherzone (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIGCOV to establish GNG. Nothing beyond passing mentions, and his body of work has not received the level of recognition required for ANYBIO or other SNGs.
JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - Please see major improvements to the article that help show WP:BASIC, received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, and WP:AUTHOR creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. See new sections under Career and Selected works for important plays and nationally circulated short stories written by Van Riper, and Van Ryper ship models that are now part of the South Street Seaport Museum. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg, you don't seem to understand the NAUTHOR SNG guidline. This is puffery. The fact that he wrote for magazines does not mean he created a significant or well known collective body of work. If he did, there would be citations by literary critics analyzing his writings found on Google Scholar (there are none), or one would find him mentioned in N-grams. Both tools turned up exactly zero. Writers write, that is simply what they do. Nor does he pass NARTIST just because some of the patterns for model boats from his commercial model shop were donated to a museum by his son. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your frustration. Examining the citations, it's evident the depth of coverage and having multiple published secondary and primary sources that are reliable, independent of each other, and independent of the subject, meet the criteria outlined in WP:BASIC. It's disheartening that editors are more inclined to delete an article that is backed by extensive coverage and documentation that demonstrate the indiviudal's notability for their accomplishments. So far, there are two votes in favor to keeping the article. Although this is not conclusive, there is enough opion not to delete this article, suggesting that efforts should be directed toward improving the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I found 3 citations from Google Scholar on "Charles K. Van Riper":
    Greg Henderson (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first is not independent, "Quarterly", written by his grandson, A. Bowdoin Van Riper, who is the son of Anthony King Van Riper, who is the son of Charles King Van Riper.
    • The second "Collected letters mentions him in a footnote to a personal letter about the value of some property he owned.
    • The third is mention/name check. Netherzone (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to update. Things written by family members shouldn't count towards notability any more so than letter of recommendations written by parents/children of subject being taken seriously. Netherzone's analysis is spot on. While Henderson piled on some more fluff, none of it strengthens notability claim. Graywalls (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Building the ship models might add to local history, but outside of that area, he's not known for them. Founding the amateur baseball/softball league could be notable, but there is hardly anything about that either. Great local history, but likely not up to the level we require here in Wikipedia Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mztourist:, list of three sources significant, independent and reliable sources that are reliably published would be nice. Remember, articles written by Van Riper son or grandson can not be counted as "independent of subject". Group blogs, like museum's website contents don't count for notability purposes. Graywalls (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason as Mushy Yank. It addresses the "local only" argument: he worked on a national level for the Federal Government and was a major contributor in this niche field. Sources include: Here (discussed above by Mushy Yank), here (New Yorker: "famous workshop"), here (concerning he influenced the naming of the USS Leviathan one of the most important liners of its era), here (chapter-length book coverage). -- GreenC 06:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Superlatives like "renowned..." "famous..." are common in guides. The magazine source you cited, which includes contact info and hours for the museum which means its a travel guide. It's a trivial coverage and being worded "a collection" vs saying "famous collection" is more of a writing style thing. Without significant, independent coverage, a swath of trivial coverage is not a substitution for significant, independent reliable secondary coverage. In depth coverage written by the article subject's son or grandson such as tales of his grandpa told by grandson Bow Van Riper fail the independence test. I'm not able to see the whole contents in the book, but how long is the chapter and what portion of it is Bow Van Riper telling stories? Graywalls (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You disagree on a fine point about one of the sources, I disagree with your finish point. Your sinister-sounding suggestion that "Bow Van Riper is telling stories", I have no idea what you are talking about, and admittedly neither do you ("I'm not able to see the whole contents"). The chapter is a history of the shop and concerns BVR, and it includes quotes from people other than BVR, and it includes quotes from newspapers that wrote about BVR during that period, "the establishment became a genuine war industry [during WWII]", and the book says this quote "recognized the importance of the BVR shop", furthering evidence of notability. -- GreenC 16:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. In the future, if you change your "vote", please strike out the one that no longer represents your point of view. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parlay Starr

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

Older article that hasn't been well-sourced for years. Normally, an older article like this I'd either do a {{sources exist}} or nominate it for procedural deletion, but sources don't *really* exist on Google and it's been recently edited (so a PROD tag would likely get deleted). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any notable or significant coverage of the topic, fails GNG. CoconutOctopus talk 22:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BEFORE. Other than the one source in the article I can't find anything at all on Google news, newspaper, or books Bearian (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least find some other way to preserve the content, as there is at least one source. This article receives about 2 views per day, and the fact that an anonymous editor added a 2024 album, recently, suggests there may be sources out there that do not show up with a Google search. The content had to have landed in the article somehow, it is just nobody has bothered to cite their sources at the time, and they have now all gone away. Although there is a connected contributor, the article is not really written like WP:PROMO. Perhaps redirect to a broader topic, or try a broader search under his real name. I can find a page on SoundCloud without too much trouble and also United Gangs, among others. Although there is not much actually written about him since 2014. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
    @Cameron Dewe We need about 3-5 independent, reliable sources that have a significant mention of Starr for him to be considered notable. So, not the ones you listed out, unfortunately. Also, since @Liz didn't ping you with this (they probably just forgot; it happens), but you would need to suggest a redirect; article deletion just hides content from public view, anyways, it doesn't actually delete it from the server. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this might be tenuous, but merge and redirect as a footnote to Tha Realest, who was a guest artist on one of Parlay Starr's recordings in 2010. Deletion will leave a red link in that artist's discography, as well as his article, which are the only two articles that link to the subject. This action will reduce the risk of resurrection if the decision is made to delete. The alternative is to remove the wiki-links as part of any post-deletion clean-up. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cameron Dewe Redlinks aren't something to be universally avoided, therefore don't universally need to be removed. Overlinking should be avoided and should be fixed, but that's regardless of whether or not the articles exists; "seas of blue" and "seas of red" both need to be avoided. Also, there's some lists on Wikipedia that are broadly-defined and extensive enough that you need to add only articles that exist to it, but that's an exception to the rule that's often explictly stated in hidden comments inside these lists.
    You've expressed concern that a redlink would decrease the likelihood of recreation. Redlinks actually increase the chances of an article being created, more so than a redirect. This is in part because recreating an article over a redirect is more easily reverted than recreating a deleted article. To be clear, I don't support reflexively reverting a recreation of an article over a redirect; I'm just saying it's more easily reverted. It's hitting an undo button (with a redirect) vs. nominating the article for deletion again (with outright recreation).
    Like I said previously, article deletion just hides content from public view, anyways, it doesn't actually delete it from the server. In fact, admins can still look at almost all articles that have been "deleted." If Starr ever becomes notable, the content can, in fact, be restored. In fact, premature creation of temporarily non-notable subjects is one reason why articles are hidden instead of deleted (along with the occasional accidental deletion, accountability, etc.). The article is likely to be restored in draftspace or in someones' sandbox so reliable sources can be added before it's moved to mainspace, but it's still restorable.
    And yeah, redirect to a guest artist is pretty tenuous, particularly with the above context. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @I dream of horses: Having considered whats been said, this is a biography of a living person so a high standard of citations are needed. So if the citations are not there and the historic ones have been lost, this is effectively an unverified article, so I am forced to agree that deletion inevitably follows. If someone wants to recreate this article in the future then they will need better citations than now exist. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cameron Dewe Thank you for absorbing what's been said. It might be worth it to officially change your vote to delete/soft delete (a "soft delete" is a delete with an explicit undeletion offer.) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @I dream of horses: Ok. Delete on the condition that a request for undeletion can be made in the future should this living person subsequently become notable, either under a nom-de-plume or his real name. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. But if you are going to suggest a possible Redirect as a resolution, you have to name the target article you think is appropriate. That is not a closer's job.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BookAuthority

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

Fails WP:GNG and NCORP. All 6 sources are interviews, blogs, routine coverage, business directory listings and trivial mentions. Not able to find any sources with significant coverage of the company Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new sections to present a more objective and neutral picture of the topic and included additional references. Jacob0790 (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 sources you added does not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Cooke

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR - acted in local plays. Sources are all local, along with primary documents. Melcous (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a biography of a female actress and stage manager. She is best known as the daughter of writer Grace MacGowan Cooke and for her leading roles at the Forest Theater in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. She began her acting career at a young age, securing a role in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. Primary and Secondary sources support WP:NP and WP:RS. Please keep this important actress in our encyclopedia! Not sure why the following fact was deleted: "On July 2–3 and 5, 1915, at age 15, Cooke played "Herald" in the play Junípero Serra"? Greg Henderson (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She was a working actress, just not a notable one. She never played on Broadway or in the West End. Most of her career seems to have been at a single outdoor regional theatre. Most, if not all of her credits seem to be for short--running productions; it does not appear that she ever starred in a work with a long run. There is a long section called "works", but they are not her works. Presumably they are works in which she acted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a whole lot of contents about her immediate family members, but contents that can be truly attributed to her shows no indication of satisfying WP:NACTOR or GNG. Simply being associated with someone notable does not receive notability and it is not a reason for notability per WP:INVALIDBIO guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Merge option just mentioned at the end of the week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Appears to have been a prominent director of the famed Carmel art colony. Well written and well sourced. A newspapers.com search for just her nickname targeted to just California and excluding obituaries returns 25 results. GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This doesn't show the context. Search result count would include trivial mentions such as appearing in a name list, and event announcements. Which of these sources have significant and independent coverage of this person? Graywalls (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Agree with @GraywallsGraywalls on this - that "hits" are not the same as SIGCOV. I too saw a lot of "hits" in hyper-local news (in a tiny community) that turned out to be name-checks, two word mentions, articles about other people who just include her name, and photo captions. This is part of a walled garden. Netherzone (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember - WP:ARTIST played a major role in co-creating a significant collective body of work, e.g. Forest Theater Plays and Katharine Cooke will be Alice in Alice in Wonderland. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on! That is micro-significance, as documented in a photo album from the Forest Theater itself; the other link is a photo and photo caption, and a press announcement for the five day run in a tiny town of a few hundred people at the time. That is a grave misunderstand the SNG's criteria. An example of a "significant collective body of work" is Picasso's Blue Period painting series or Sean Connery or Roger Moore playing in many James Bond films. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Netherzone, fails GNG. While I'm normally very supportive of AtD's, in this case I don't think merge would be appropriate per Graywalls. At worst, could live with redirect to the 'Early years' section of Grace MacGowan Cooke, but with no mandate to merge. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. but it sounds like this article could use a lot of attention and updating. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ag Against Hunger

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

Worthy organisation, but I couldn't establish that there are sources to show WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, with [98], [99], [100] in addition to the Western Farm Press news piece in the article's EL section, this meets WP:GNG in my opinion. The article needs to be pruned down to sourcable information. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But this may need to be updated to reflect change in org structure. I fixed the dead link to their website to what looks like the current one. I think that was confusing people. WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strictly Ballroom (band) (3rd nomination)

Proposed deletions

for occasional archiving

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/California&oldid=1197744768"